np: Sewer Election - Choking In Shit And Decadence
― pons (crüt), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 04:08 (fifteen years ago)
old thread US POLITICS: "I figured clueless was better than argumentative."
― pons (crüt), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 04:09 (fifteen years ago)
Alan Grayson, R.I.P.
He was a delightfully hilarious congressman with his heart in the right place, and one of the creepiest sleaziest campaigners I've ever seen. I will miss him.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 04:49 (fifteen years ago)
i voted! all tea-party ticket.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 12:31 (fifteen years ago)
I voted for Crist.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 12:33 (fifteen years ago)
I love paper ballots, maybe because it's the only time in my adult life where I get to color things in by hand.
― kenan, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 12:33 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, me too, alfred.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 12:35 (fifteen years ago)
I voted but I presently live in the red zone so who gives a fuck (actually I'm presently overseas which is making all this election nonsense feel pleasantly distant).
― Euler, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:01 (fifteen years ago)
I think I'll hit .500 today. Yay, democracy.
― (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:06 (fifteen years ago)
IL's paper ballots are absolutely enormous. 11x17, maybe? Huge.
― SEXY HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN PORTUGAL (Jesse), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:08 (fifteen years ago)
it's the only time in my adult life where I get to color things in by hand.
Join the Board of Elections; I understand this is a perk.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:14 (fifteen years ago)
He was a delightfully hilarious congressman with his heart in the right place
Is being an abusive egomaniac really having your heart in the right place?
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:27 (fifteen years ago)
good luck america
― Terminal Boredoms (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:27 (fifteen years ago)
if you take everything super-literally then "his heart's in the right place" because a damnation-with-faint-praise sort of deal
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:28 (fifteen years ago)
Symmetry requires.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:29 (fifteen years ago)
Felt pretty good voting against Jan Brewer and for medical marijuana. The usual feeling of throwing ice cubes into the mouth of hell felt less good.
― 17th Century Catholic Spain (Abbbottt), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:30 (fifteen years ago)
Oh boy. From Slate.
After an excruciating eight years of Bush, the thrill still hasn't worn off for me of once again having an intellectually nimble president, not to mention one who doesn't pride himself on going with his gut when it comes to foreign policy. Whenever I watched Bush speak extemporaneously, I'd feel alternately embarrassed by and for him. I'd be tempted to cover my eyes, as if watching a clumsy figure skater botching double Lutz jumps. And whenever I interacted with someone from another country, I'd feel compelled to mention that I hadn't voted for Bush.
But when I see Obama on television, I'm unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, by the magnificence of his megawatt smile. He just makes me proud, and perhaps this is where I should admit that if there are two categories of Obama critics—conservatives who never liked the guy and have in some cases become unhinged since he was elected, and centrists or Democrats who voted for him but now feel let down—I suspect that, in the visceral nature of my response to our president, I have more in common with the unhinged nut jobs. By this I mean that my Obama admiration is a kind of emotional inverse of the right-wing Obama antipathy: I can pretend it's all about policy, but in truth, it's much more personal. Where his detractors dislike him because of, say, that Muslim vibe he gives off, I like him for similarly nebulous, albeit slightly more factual reasons.I like that he's married to—and seemingly still quite taken with—a strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, and that he has two ridiculously cute daughters. I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family. I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears. I thought that the beer summit of 2009 was delightful. I was even excited when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, not realizing until pundits explained otherwise that I was supposed to be aghast at its prematurity. And I wasn't a bit offended by Obama's alleged 2008 debate gaffe—a line the otherwise irreproachable Frank Rich mentioned yet again in a column as recently as September—in remarking to Hillary Clinton, "You're likable enough, Hillary." Oh, and did I mention that I actually voted for Hillary in Missouri's Democratic primary? I was one of those Democrats who thought it'd be nice to have an entrée of eight years of Hillary, with Obama as a vice-presidential side, followed by eight years of a more seasoned Obama as the main course. I was always an Obama admirer, but maybe the fact that I was initially rooting for Hillary has prevented me from feeling the disappointment in his presidency expressed by certain Obamamaniacs. So swoony and ardent was their Obama love during the campaign that it couldn't be sustained; my more measured affection, by contrast, has grown over time.
At this point, I love Obama so much that I recently thought if it were 1961, I'd probably display a bust of him in my living room.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:33 (fifteen years ago)
CURTIS SITTENFELD was wsnking as he wrote this.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:35 (fifteen years ago)
"he"?
― SEXY HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN PORTUGAL (Jesse), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:37 (fifteen years ago)
That comment -- please tell me it's not from someone paid by Slate -- jibes w/ my belief that when Churchill said democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others, he was emphasizing NO, REALLY, IT SUCKS.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:39 (fifteen years ago)
would prefer "He"?
xp
― inimitable bowel syndrome (schlump), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:40 (fifteen years ago)
http://asset3.venuszine.com/article_image/image/3209/viewer_wide/CurtisSittenfeld_.jpg?1199395367
― buzza, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:40 (fifteen years ago)
well EXCUSE ME for assuming someone named "Curtis" was a guy
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:40 (fifteen years ago)
In NY I will be voting for the Dems for state AG and comptroller -- both races are polling even and I will gamble that they'll be marginally better than the Repug, esp since the GOP AG guy worked for goddamn Goldman Sachs -- and otherwise voting straight Green where they have a candidate, abstaining from the other races.
NO to reducing term limits (again) to two terms from three (ie fuck you, Bloomberg emperor asshole).
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:44 (fifteen years ago)
I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:45 (fifteen years ago)
he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:48 (fifteen years ago)
Where his detractors dislike him because of, say, that Muslim vibe he gives off,
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:49 (fifteen years ago)
Aw, Curtis Sittenfeld. She also, for what it's worth, wrote American Wife, a novel that asks us to imagine George W. and Laura Bush getting it on.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:49 (fifteen years ago)
Also, if there was stylist for that photo of Curtis, s/he should be 're-educated'.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:49 (fifteen years ago)
a novel that asks us to imagine George W. and Laura Bush getting it on.
And just like that I understand the anti-porn crusaders
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:50 (fifteen years ago)
I voted this morning. Voted Dems in state races and a combo of Greens and Dems in city/county races. Also Forrest Claypool for county assessor, who's ordinarily a Democrat but is running as an independent against Democrat Joe Berrios, a machine party hack.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:53 (fifteen years ago)
did you know that Toy Story 3 accurately reflects the mood of the nation going into this midterm?
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:54 (fifteen years ago)
likely accurate, it seems to me:
Everyone knows Democrats are going to take a beating tomorrow. Estimates vary on how bad a beating -- and, hey, you never know, there could be some surprises. But I do know this: Democrats and their supporters are going to be blown away by the narratives that are seeded on election night and emerge in full bloom by Wednesday morning. Some you're ready for: The election proves that America is a center-right country. Voters have ratified the Republican agenda. Democrats took a bad economy and made it worse.But those are the easy ones to predict. If history is a guide, Republicans will parlay this victory into grand proclamations about "what it means" in the same way you might start a negotiation with an over-the-top demand. The higher your initial demand, the studies suggest, the higher the ultimate settlement price. Same thing going on here. Unfortunately, history also suggests Democrats won't counter with a ridiculously low offer. If you thought Democrats had trouble putting together a coherent message during the campaign, wait until they're a defeated and demoralized party. They won't be up to countering these narratives, which willing friends in the media will help the GOP perpetuate. It's not going to be pretty.
Some you're ready for: The election proves that America is a center-right country. Voters have ratified the Republican agenda. Democrats took a bad economy and made it worse.
But those are the easy ones to predict. If history is a guide, Republicans will parlay this victory into grand proclamations about "what it means" in the same way you might start a negotiation with an over-the-top demand. The higher your initial demand, the studies suggest, the higher the ultimate settlement price. Same thing going on here.
Unfortunately, history also suggests Democrats won't counter with a ridiculously low offer. If you thought Democrats had trouble putting together a coherent message during the campaign, wait until they're a defeated and demoralized party. They won't be up to countering these narratives, which willing friends in the media will help the GOP perpetuate. It's not going to be pretty.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:57 (fifteen years ago)
Why am I getting Republican text-message spam?
― jaymc, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)
I seriously thought that Slate column was a parody when I first read it – something written to make fun of Obama's most ardent supporters in '08.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:06 (fifteen years ago)
in the same way you might start a negotiation with an over-the-top demand.
Unless you are Obama
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:09 (fifteen years ago)
Shrub has to be the only President in my life I can think of who didn't lose the House in his first midterm election.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:20 (fifteen years ago)
Well, being that it's only changed hands twice in 50 years...
― (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:24 (fifteen years ago)
I did a connect-the-dots ballot rather than wait for the touch screen this morning, and when I turned it in the machine told me there was an overvote. Lo and beyond, there it was: Ed Washington. Apparently I voted both for and against his reelection as one of 3423 judges.
"What happens now?" I ask the lady.
"Well, either you fill out a new ballot, or the overvote gets discounted."
"Just that one vote?"
"Yes."
"The rest of the ballot is unaffected?"
"Correct."
"Sorry, Ed Washington, whoever you are!"
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:27 (fifteen years ago)
My local polling place is the Teamster's Temple and the local House Rep is running unopposed. There hasn't been a Republican on the city council for 90 years. I don't think this is a sign of a particularly healthy democracy.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:29 (fifteen years ago)
LOL Ohio:
10:50 a.m. --We have received an update to the earlier story about the voting snafu at R.J. Smith Elementary School in Massillon. The presiding judge of that precinct had her car stolen this morning, as she was warming it up before driving to work.Inside the car were keys to unlock the voting machines. Without the keys, the polls were unable to the scheduled time of 6:30 a.m. The Stark County B.O.E. sent a troubleshooter to unlock the polling machines around 7:15 a.m.As a result of not opening at 6:30, eight people were turned away at that time. At least one of those individuals has returned to cast his vote.
Inside the car were keys to unlock the voting machines. Without the keys, the polls were unable to the scheduled time of 6:30 a.m. The Stark County B.O.E. sent a troubleshooter to unlock the polling machines around 7:15 a.m.
As a result of not opening at 6:30, eight people were turned away at that time. At least one of those individuals has returned to cast his vote.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:29 (fifteen years ago)
fucks sake
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:30 (fifteen years ago)
ACTUALLY one-party rule vs EFFECTIVELY one-party rule -- what else is there?
xxp
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:31 (fifteen years ago)
i voted green party candidate for TN gov because a.) the republican's going to win by a huge amount anyway; b.) the democrat's an anti-gay-adoption posturing legacy candidate (daddy was a guvnor back a ways); c.) the republican's sort of an ok guy by current gop standards and also mayor of my city, so on balance i don't really mind him getting elected even tho there's no way i can actually vote for him; and d.) if the green party ever ekes up over 5 percent in any of these elections, it can actually get a dedicated ballot line next time around.
i also voted against a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish, because i'm not sure that really needs to be a constitutional right. and it's not like anyone's going to try to ban it, anyway. but i'm sure it will pass.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:33 (fifteen years ago)
Matt Taibbi:
Rahm's gone, midterms are here. How do you foresee the next two years of the Obama administration playing out?
The Republicans are going to win now and retake at least one house. What few reforms have been enacted, there's going to be an effort to role those back. Nothing serious is going to get done now for at least two years. Obama's going to win re-election in 2012. The Tea Party thing is now so big that there's no way that the Republicans can nominate someone who's not friendly to the Tea Party. But whomever they nominate is going to be nuts, so that person is not going to win the swing vote. Democrats will sweep through to victory and do nothing again for four years
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:33 (fifteen years ago)
10:42 a.m. --Voters in Parma are having some problems finding a place to park at the polling location at Pleasant Valley Elementary.The school is not in session for the students today, but they do have a teacher work day. With the teachers at the school, the parking lot is crowded and several voters have reported leaving the location because they can't find a place to park.
The school is not in session for the students today, but they do have a teacher work day. With the teachers at the school, the parking lot is crowded and several voters have reported leaving the location because they can't find a place to park.
Follow Ohio election lulz here: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/political/blog-election-day-live-updates
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:33 (fifteen years ago)
from the other side of the rust belt, can i say, ohio, get your fucking shit together
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:36 (fifteen years ago)
we've only been doing this for a century or so
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:37 (fifteen years ago)
have these been linked yet?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/5-reasons-republicans-could-do-even-better-than-expected/
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/5-reasons-democrats-could-beat-the-polls-and-hold-the-house/
everything went to hell after mark hanna died.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:38 (fifteen years ago)
highly likely scenario imho
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:39 (fifteen years ago)
all comes down to who does the blame game better over the next two years. if nothing gets done and the Republicans have the House they'll have to work that much harder to justify it. Of course, the Dems are pretty useless at PR so they'll probably come out alright, which would then lead to the Tea Party nomination scenario.
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:41 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, i read that taibbi interview alfred excerpted. taibbi is absolutely OTM.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)
where's the link?
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)
that slate article is easily the most retarded thing ive read this year
i voted absentee already. i have a great congressman so that was pretty easy. didn't vote for schumer but he'll win by 30 points anyway
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:43 (fifteen years ago)
While we're waiting for all that tea to get brewed.
1994: I was driving back to Minneapolis from visiting my girlfriend in Missouri. It was (and only) general election I missed voting in. That night, I was listening to the AM news stations from Des Moines and Chicago, from Newt's victory speech to Mario Cuomo going down in flames. Beating the steering wheel and going "NOooooo!"
Now it's going to happen again, and I don't think I'm going to get wound up again. I'm not going to be pleased about it, but surely if this nation could survive the Civil War, it can handle six years of Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) I mean, hell, it's not going to be much different than Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
And if Obama can successfully turn this into the "See? I Told You So!" 2012 campaign, then go for it. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some sort of perverse deathwish to see Rand Paul elected. The weeds always grow first after a good crop burning.
― (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:46 (fifteen years ago)
Taibbi otm, making George Carlin's "Fuck voting" monologue ever more defensible.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:46 (fifteen years ago)
The weeds always grow first after a good crop burning.
i like this as a "wednesday morning" slogan.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:47 (fifteen years ago)
really disappointing that there aren't rent is too damn high candidates downticket on the ny ballot
― kamerad, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:59 (fifteen years ago)
Via Twitter, former Letters to Cleo singer Kay Hanley:
kayhanleyRegular Studio City polling place moved w/o warning from easily accessible loc at Laurel+Ventura to prohibitive Mulholland Dr. Outrage.
kayhanley Nothing says "Let them eat cake" quite like moving the election to the top of a mountain accessible only by car. With no parking.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
Taibbi q&a:
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201010/griftopia-matt-taibbi-breaking-america
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:14 (fifteen years ago)
i had no idea taibbi was behind the exile! makes sense
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:16 (fifteen years ago)
looking forward to voting later, but totally annoyed by all my friends spamming the shit out of Facebook with "I voted!" and "Did you vote?" posts
― markers, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
6 domestic terrorists inspired by Fox News
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:32 (fifteen years ago)
just voted and lol at Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) democracy: Four guys with the last name Corrigan and all unopposed
― browns zero loss (brownie), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:35 (fifteen years ago)
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_krljc3Xjjj1qz54k3.jpg
"fuckin a right"
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:37 (fifteen years ago)
voted an hour again ... though it's an off-year election here in NJ (i.e., other than the House race and a local city counsel seat, nothing else) and given that i am in Hudson County the Democrat is a shoo-in.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:55 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/john_boehner.jpg
REALLY going to be wanting to punch this face for the next few years. Watched him on C-SPAN at a rally the other night saying "Obama called anyone who disagrees with him enemies. My friends, I call you patriots."
Ipso facto, I am NOT a patriot, Boehner's name-calling trumps Obama's, and somehow we will no longer be a "divided country" come Wednesday morning. Hooray.
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.guidofistpump.com/guido%20pix/guido_orange.jpg
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:04 (fifteen years ago)
Boehner's got a face tailor made for black-and-white negative campaign ads.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:08 (fifteen years ago)
Thing is, he's not punchable like Cheney, where I actually knew there were some (devious) ideas in his head. Boehner just seems like the emptiest empty suit ever.
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:12 (fifteen years ago)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/S9CkcY_PXWI/AAAAAAAAQyw/ZyHIWj6HjVY/s1600/428px-John_Boehner_golf.jpg
Finally, America has found a leader who's in touch with the voters.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:15 (fifteen years ago)
Holy shit, thank you for that! And this from a party that questioned John Kerry's "guyness."
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:17 (fifteen years ago)
if this hasn't already been commented upon ... http://twitter.com/rosannecash/status/29421685199
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
Boehner's only point in his favor: he's an avid smoker.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)
He probably has a whole temperature controlled room in his D.C. house filled with free cartons from Phillip Morris.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
note to self: no political discussions on facebook today
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
note to self: no political discussions on facebook today ever
I'm having a hard time with the temptation to visit the FB page of the guy I went on a date with who is a really vocal Tea Bagger, Palin fan, and Firorina fan. It's disgusting, especially as he is only 24. I once wrote something critical of Palin on my page and he responded "No H8!" and gave me a little speech on how Dems are very intolerant.
― SEXY HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN PORTUGAL (Jesse), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
Some are, some aren't. But criticism of Sarah Palin is pretty objective.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:46 (fifteen years ago)
My friend chided me for predicting, a couple of years ago, that she would fade away. I assuaged her frustration by reminding her that Palin is a lot closer to Snooki than elected office.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
it's a nice clear day today nationwide. that's one very small bright spot
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:55 (fifteen years ago)
You're urging Dems to stay home and enjoy the weather, aren't you.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
i made a mistake, posted some diatribe about how the country has always been full of shit and ideals should be left behind on election day (didnt say who to vote for or even any modern policy) and then got hit with someone talking about how they work for their money and dont want to have to rely on obama and all the standard republican talking points. at the end they asked "where does socialism actually work?" and i was tempted to write about my wonderful recent vacation in sweden (also including fellow socialist hell denmark) but figured i should just pull the plug on the FB all together today...
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
No, you should have said "Sweden, where PS they also aren't afraid of non-white ppl" and THEN pulled the plug on FB
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:02 (fifteen years ago)
Ingmar Bergman never made films with black people if I remember correctly.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, but the dude who played Bill Cosby's dad on The Cosby Show is a beloved television personality over there
oh shit I looked it up and I meant Norway, never mind
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:16 (fifteen years ago)
Let's stave off the gloom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyLObuHfo14
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
You mean Sweden, where just last year they constitutionally banned minarets? I'll give Europe the benefit of socialism's, well, benefits, but the people are nearly every bit as racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant and prejudiced as we are.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
Oh, whoops, that was Switzerland, wasn't it? Same dif.
Sweden: The country Americans always mistake for some other country.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
Country That's Not America: The country Americans always mistake for some other country.
― markers, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:28 (fifteen years ago)
I think I went there once.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:32 (fifteen years ago)
America?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)
No, the other place.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)
where?
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:34 (fifteen years ago)
About 10 years ago, my wife and I were seated next to a well-dressed guy on a connecting flight to Newark. We had a very nice conversation about several things, including education and politics. Near the end of the flight he asked us if Newark was our final destination. We told him no, we were heading on to Amsterdam. He replied, "Oh. Which state is that in?"
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)
I'm sure there's an Amsterdam, New Mexico.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
Crossing back into the United States from Vancouver, my dad pulled the rental car up to the border patrol booth. The guard took one look at our California plate and said, "From California, huh?"
My dad said no, we're from Arkansas. The guard just looked at him blankly and said, "Arkansas, California?"
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)
I once met a dude in Santa Barbara that thought Illinois was a city in Chicago. I bet he's not the voting type, though. Or the reading type.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)
A guy in my high school in North Carolina asked me if Montana used the same kind of money as they used in NC.
― SEXY HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN PORTUGAL (Jesse), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx#1069
― everything you do is a meatloaf (another al3x), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)
If it weren't for sports I bet many if not most Americans wouldn't have much idea where our major cities are.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
Like Anaheim, Auburn Hills, Arlington...
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
lol there were two ballot initiatives in my county dealing with different ways to make further ballot initiatives easier (lower signature count and longer filing period) and i was like, oh hell no
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
Kinda want to see the artist's rendering of the tapeworm though.
LOL at 1069
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
I'd vote for it if the tapeworm was also depicted fixing potholes.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:30 (fifteen years ago)
what the hell is 1072 about
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)
Clerks and bouncers can't get fined anymore for not checking ID?
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:37 (fifteen years ago)
ah i see, you buy liquor underage it's all on you, not the bartender or the liquor store clerk.
vote yes!
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:38 (fifteen years ago)
ahhhhhhhhh, the classy 2010 midterm elections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjkf9BshhxE&feature=player_embedded
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:39 (fifteen years ago)
I don't get 1072, either.
We should send designs to the sponsor of 1069.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
so if you are 19 you can buy alcohol, but you aren't allowed to actually pick up the booze and carry it out to your car?
I feel like someone didn't think this through
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:41 (fifteen years ago)
Sweden is currently undergoing an anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim thing like every other country on the planet. Same story as everywhere. Worldwide recession, loss of jobs, nativists blame it on the immigrants. Been happening for centuries.00
The town I was staying in (usually peaceful Malmo, which recently has some nutbag going around shooting immigrants) has a big immigrant population, and you hear "They're taking our jobs! They're taking our welfare money!", the same kind of stuff you hear about Mexicans in America. Fear tactics don't seem to be part of the national debate here, it's mostly economic. Also for the most part the only ppl in saying that are the anti-immigrant party that was founded by actual Nazis. The day after election day, when that party got seats in the parliament for the first time, there were huge demonstrations of ppl chanting "No racists on our streets!" and "We welcome refugees!".
Thing is, if the US hadn't started all these wars, there'd be far less refugees in Sweden and all over Europe, and far few 'immigrant problems' IMO. And if there wasn't a worldwide recession (thank you Wall Street & American banks) there'd be far less anti-immigrant sentiment the world over.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:42 (fifteen years ago)
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:41 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark
it makes possessing alcohol the illegal act, but not buying it, which lets sellers off the hook. unless they're selling to really young people (under 19). seems designed to make life easier for bar and liquor store owners which is fine by me tbf
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:45 (fifteen years ago)
most of those didn't make the ballotfor the record 1053, 1082, 1098, 1100, 1105, 1107 made it. no tapeworm this year:(
― avinha, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:53 (fifteen years ago)
btw look for marco rubio to be mentioned frequently as a VP possibility in 2012 -- or even a possible GOP nominee.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:54 (fifteen years ago)
unless they're selling to really young people (under 19)
does not compute
― cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:55 (fifteen years ago)
it makes possessing alcohol the illegal act, but not buying it, which lets sellers off the hook.
right, so... "if you are 19 you can buy alcohol, but you aren't allowed to actually pick up the booze and carry it out to your car"
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:58 (fifteen years ago)
yup!
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:59 (fifteen years ago)
seems like ridiculous legislation. how hard is it to check ID? i've worked both as a bouncer and a convenience store clerk, and it's generally very easy to tell what's legit and what's not. can see why store and bar owners would want this passed, as it takes the heat off and allows them to sell to underage people, but what does anyone else gain from it?
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:00 (fifteen years ago)
Some states have it where you can't have a minor with you when you buy alcohol. I worked with a guy who tried to buy a six-pack at the grocery store with his 20-year-old wife, and they wouldn't sell it to him.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:01 (fifteen years ago)
P.S. She was eight months pregnant at the time.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)
can see why store and bar owners would want this passed, as it takes the heat off and allows them to sell to underage people, but what does anyone else gain from it?
a bunch of frustrated 19-year-olds begging older ppl to carry their 12-packs for them?
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)
more to the point you don't have these stupid cop sting operations where they dress up like college kids, get served without showing a license, and then nail the bouncer, server and owner for a bunch of huge fines.
every year in every college town there's a stupid story about some kid drinking himself to death or falling in a river drunk or something, and lawmakers have responded. throw in some genuine concern for girls getting wasted and then attacked, there you go.
i want to start wearing a t-shirt that just says 'decriminalize everything'
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:03 (fifteen years ago)
Most acts are characterized as crimes because they represent revenue for law enforcement and fed, state, and local governments.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:04 (fifteen years ago)
anyway, according to avinha, 1072 didn't get approved (i guess there's steps to these things in OR) so we don't really need to beat this into the ground
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
Yes underage drinking busts have shut down many nice clubs around Atlanta. I'm in favor of this law. Fine the kid, fine the kid's parents, fine the alcohol companies instead!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:06 (fifteen years ago)
(i think it was a "you have to gather _____ signatures" and that one didn't) xp
― avinha, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:06 (fifteen years ago)
Is the Roberts Court responsible for Russ Feingold’s troubles?
To a degree, yes, writes Barnes. According to the story, Johnson has invested more than $8 million of his money in the race, and although the two campaigns are competitive with each other financially, outside groups have spent nearly $3 million on Johnson’s behalf.
A WaPo analysis shows 92 percent of the outside spending has supported the Republican. The impact has been obvious: The Wesleyan Media Project said there have been more commercials about the Senate race in Wisconsin than in any state outside Nevada.
“I’ve always been a target in this stuff,” Feingold said during a recent campaign stop. “And this year, I’m getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads [criticizing him] that used to not be legal.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/02/one-man-feeling-the-effects-of-citizens-united-russ-feingold/
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)
Via Twitter, former Letters to Cleo singer Kay Hanley:kayhanleyRegular Studio City polling place moved w/o warning from easily accessible loc at Laurel+Ventura to prohibitive Mulholland Dr. Outrage.kayhanleyNothing says "Let them eat cake" quite like moving the election to the top of a mountain accessible only by car. With no parking.
kayhanleyNothing says "Let them eat cake" quite like moving the election to the top of a mountain accessible only by car. With no parking.
218 bus up laurel canyon blvd (from laurel/ventura), get off at mulholland. costs $1.50.
― the moray eels eat the (get bent), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
my polling place was at the community center in the park, about three blocks away. no problems here.
― the moray eels eat the (get bent), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:30 (fifteen years ago)
A few years ago I voted in someone's garage. That was weird.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:31 (fifteen years ago)
i dunno. in my experience, it's really, really easy to keep kids out of your club if you honestly don't want them there, don't want their money. but if you DO kind of want their money, then hell yes it should be your responsibility if they get fucked up and hurt themselves, hurt one another. personally, i think it should be legal for 18-year-olds to drink - but so long as it remains illegal, it seems appropriate to insist that club and bar owners refuse service to the underage, and to punish them when they're lax about this.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:36 (fifteen years ago)
^ OTM
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
― goole, Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:05 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:42 (fifteen years ago)
lol I am trying to think of when asking people on this board not to beat something into the ground didn't encourage 50+ more posts on the subject just to be irritating
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
It's better than arguing about whether to vote D or 'punish them' again!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)
18-yo's should not DRIVE
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:46 (fifteen years ago)
but I'm glad you're all concerned about the last principled senator getting bounced by a flood of newly unleashed corporate cash
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:47 (fifteen years ago)
all kinds of people have been concerned, on these threads, about the end of feingold's career, for weeks now.
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)
and talking about citizens united too
Sorry I am not rending my garments enough for you, Morbs.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)
i dunno if 'principled' is enough to describe him. he tried tacking right a month or so ago, even ran ads touting endorsements by some tea party group or another, which i thought was pretty gross. but all to no avail.
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
I'm trying not to say anything bad about corporate campaign ads because after this election the only job left in America will be working on those ads and I wanna get in while the gettin's good.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:52 (fifteen years ago)
Still haven't decided how dangerous Citizens United supposedly is.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tA24uF3tLM
― schwantz, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
In Florida, billionaire Rick Scott has spent almost $100 million of his own money on attack ads yet the race is a dead heat. Look at poor Mittens in 2008. I'm just not convinced that unlimited cash at one's disposal means a political office is for the taking.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
In other words, Feingold isn't necessarily the victim of Citizens United -- he would have been in terrible trouble without the ads.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
otm, and yet, I resent the implication lol
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
IIRC, hasn't Feingold ALWAYS faced tough re-election bids?!?
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:54 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
yeah i guess it's possible all the outside money is wasted and the results would have been just as awful anyway. bad money after good, iow
xps
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
1654: Ashley Wilson, in St Paul, Minnesota, writes: What we really need is people in office who will move forward. There are so many people of the baby boomer generation who are wondering why we are wasting money on public schools, healthcare programs, and taking people's money away. Have Your Say
From the BBC. Unsurprised but speechless with rage.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
I have no idea if that comment is agreeing with the idea that spending money on public schools and health care is a waste or not.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:15 (fifteen years ago)
Speaking of distractions, anyone pay attention to the video game case before SCOTUS today?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:16 (fifteen years ago)
My reading was that it was yet another boomer, having benefited from the above, griping about having to pay for the same for current generations.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:17 (fifteen years ago)
either that or its an argument for decimating the over 50s.
this was lol worthy:
But Justice Scalia said there was nothing in the tradition of American free speech that would allow the government to ban depictions of violence. The thought, he said, would have been foreign to the drafters of the First Amendment, drawing a needling comment from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the lone dissenter in the Stevens case.
“What Justice Scalia wants to know,” Justice Alito said, “is what James Madision thought about video games.”
“No,” Justice Scalia responded, “I want to know what James Madison thought about violence.”
And:
Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s newest and youngest member, seemed to be the only justice with even a passing familiarity with the genre under review, even if it was second-hand.
“You think Mortal Kombat is prohibited by this statute?” she asked Mr. Morazzini. It is, she added, “an iconic game which I am sure half the clerks who work for us spent considerable time in their adolescence playing.”
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
xp there was a decent article about the case in (i think) Game Informer a month or two ago. this is basically about whether to federally mandate age restrictions on rated M video games, right?
― Mordy, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:19 (fifteen years ago)
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 8:44 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
please excuse me for turning the cynical chatter to an attempt to actually discuss why the D's are about to lose
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/today-is-the-day_b_777560.html
The final ABC/Washington Post poll shows that, among registered voters, people still say they prefer the Democrats over the Republicans by 5 percentage points. It's only when the pollsters ask "likely voters" who they want that the Republicans come out ahead by a few points.
So it's clear the majority of voters want the Dems, but the prediction is the Republicans will win because Dem voters are going to stay home.
― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
i know this is quite sad of me to say but kagan is kind of justifying her seat right there
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:22 (fifteen years ago)
What article is that from, Alfred?
― 17th Century Catholic Spain (Abbbottt), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:22 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:23 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 20:47 (29 minutes ago)
I'm confused by your reverence for Feingold above all others.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:23 (fifteen years ago)
Michael Moore?!
which raises the question, how much of a "want" is it if you stay home (because your preferred party has chosen to do jackshit for you whenever possible)?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:24 (fifteen years ago)
Name the senators who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
but Morbs that was a long time ago and besides, there was public pressure
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
only one to vote nay at the time, a few more voted nay on the re-up
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)
Actually, if the Tea Party was as principled as it pretends, it would have acknowledged how independent Feingold's been his whole career.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)
haha nice quote from Kagan AND nice quote from Scalito
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
also, all of those senators are still in office
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
Here's a case where Scalia will vote with the liberals. Actually, this is the kind of case that screws with ideology and depends entirely on one's interpretation of the First Amendment.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:34 (fifteen years ago)
Assuming Harry Reid loses (I won't miss him a bit), who will be the new majority/minority leader? Schumer? Levin?
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
Schumer is angling for it, alas.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
Schumer vs Durbin
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:39 (fifteen years ago)
right but...I mean...it's not like it was a secret that the patriot act was bullshit -- the ones who voted "yea": what do you imagine motivated that bullshit vote?
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:39 (fifteen years ago)
yeah my money would be on schumer probably. Reid is terrible but Angle will be so much worse (albeit less powerful)
on the plus side she will be first Asian legislator in the Senate
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:39 (fifteen years ago)
aero did you live in this country in 2001?
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:40 (fifteen years ago)
all the votes for the patriot act and the iraq invasion are unforgiveable sins imho
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:40 (fifteen years ago)
I would like to know why Wellstone voted for it.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:40 (fifteen years ago)
closet fascist
not making any defense of the act itself, but the idea that it was bullshit on its face would have been a very rare opinion in those days
xp wellstone 'put a suit on' as you'll all recall...
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:41 (fifteen years ago)
on the forgiveness scale:
Iraq War >>>>>> Patriot Act
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:41 (fifteen years ago)
i owed my prior job to the Patriot Act ... just sayin'
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
yeah I did. there were millions of people writing their elected representatives to urge opposition to USA Patriot. the notion that nobody could have voted against it and survived politically is total bullshit of the make-excuses-for-asshole-voting-records variety. that shit was a stake through the heart of democracy and "but the political climate!" is the best you can muster? please.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
ok, here's another question, can you tell the difference between explaining behavior and excusing it? why the patriot act sailed through congress in october of 2001 seems as obvious a political question as there has ever been
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)
Wellstone also voted for DOMA.
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)
I'd like a citation on the "millions" of letters.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
"they had to vote for it...otherwise they risked getting reelected!" well ok yeah with reelection on the table I can see how erasing several centuries of settled constitutional law via congressional fiat would be totally understandable
xp yeah that explains it, all right...what remains inexplicable is how one could support any politician whose values & ethics are so clearly not just flexible but completely on the block depending on how the winds of reelection are blowing
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
Dammit, all these Brangelina pix coming up in my GIS for "Mr. Smith".
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:47 (fifteen years ago)
can you tell the difference between explaining behavior and excusing it? why the patriot act sailed through congress in october of 2001 seems as obvious a political question as there has ever been
I was about to say: from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Espionage Act to Truman's loyalty oaths, American history is replete with assaults on free speech after a good scare. I totally understand why these guys voted for it.
The Iraq war vote certainly makes less sense.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:47 (fifteen years ago)
aero i don't think many of those dems were (mostly) afraid of not getting reelected, i think the lion's share of them, or the overwhelming number of their constituents, were really and genuinely afraid of being killed by arabs and wanted Someone to Do Something.
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)
Yes. This was the time when the entire Congress recited the Pledge on the steps of the Capitol, remember?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)
cryingeagle.gif
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:53 (fifteen years ago)
radical orgs like the american booksellers association were coordinating letter-writing campaigns
over 200 individual municipalities protested it, and this is well-documented
the idea that the political climate of post-9/11 excuses, explains, or otherwise justifies support for the total undermining of basic liberties assured by the constitution is ridiculous -- if these guys were suffering post-attack shock they might have maybe used their brains and said, jeez, you don't go fucking up 200 years of settled law just because your feeling of immunity from attack took a hit? like, otherwise, we're basically saying "the difference between our elected officials and some random hysterical asshole is...our elected officials ran for office"
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:53 (fifteen years ago)
honestly 99% of the actions of our elected officials immediately following 9/11 made me embarassed/ashamed for our country
You overrate the intelligence of your average legislator.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
lol not any more I don't!
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
yes i am basically saying that
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:55 (fifteen years ago)
and again: we know from russ feingold that it didn't take some fuckin' einstein/superman hybrid to oppose this shit. it just took the teeniest tiniest bit of spine.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:55 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:25 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark
Bernie Sanders voted against it as a congressman and surely would have as a Senator.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:56 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:50 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
god, so much crazy shit that is easy to forget.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:57 (fifteen years ago)
Apparently also easy to forget just how scaredy-cat your average U.S. citizen was immediately thereafter.
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)
Never Forget.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)
the GOP dudes who voted nay are a weird group
NeyOtterPaul
isn't bob ney in jail?
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:59 (fifteen years ago)
bob ney also the guy behind "freedom fries", lol i never knew that.
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
Ugly guy too.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:02 (fifteen years ago)
He looks like his blood is made of Hunt's Ketchup.
i still remember the friday following sept 11 in l.a., everywhere i drove people were out on the streets flashing peace signs and/or holding kill osama signs or and generally Rallying for America.
― omar little, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:03 (fifteen years ago)
in that climate it was totally easy for people to get swept up onto the "kill everyone!" train
― omar little, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:02 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
probably related to the freedom fries decision.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
His hair's the color of a cheese omelet.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/bob_ney_red_nr.jpg
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:07 (fifteen years ago)
...right...one thing that theoretically sets an elected representative apart from you or me is the notion that they won't vote away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms because of some bad shit that went down last week
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:16 (fifteen years ago)
so have we assigned someone on K-Lo watch tonight?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)
it's all you dog
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)
aaaaaand it looks like Coats and Paul win.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:25 (fifteen years ago)
welcome back to Congress, Dan Burton!
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:33 (fifteen years ago)
write in aqua buddha everybody
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
d'oh! I wrote-in Xenu for one of the races on my ballot. I wish I would've remembered Aqua Buddha.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:47 (fifteen years ago)
aqua buddha is by FAR my favorite thing that's happened throughout the whole campaign.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:48 (fifteen years ago)
At the very least, I am very curious how a Rand Paul - let alone someone like Angle - will fare in the public eye, as opposed to the periphery where they've been hanging. I reckon neither will be able to successfully push, let alone achieve, anything close to their agenda, yet each seems the sort whose constituency would take compromise ... let's just say personally. Wonder if they'll regret all their pro-gun posturing when the angry shouters start showing up at their own functions.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:49 (fifteen years ago)
it was kinda funny in a Spicoli sorta way
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:51 (fifteen years ago)
tbh I'm willing to risk it with Sharron Angle. If she wins over Reid, I'm looking forward to six straight years of hilarious shenanigans, or at least for as long as party leadership will let her go before shutting her down.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:52 (fifteen years ago)
one thing that theoretically sets an elected representative apart from you or me is the notion that they won't vote away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms because of some bad shit that went down last week
okay you are smarter than this
total aside: I voted for a Green Party candidate for state treasurer!
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:54 (fifteen years ago)
hilarious like michelle bachmann who.. well actually has quite a following. there really seems to be not much limit on how crazy you can be in the GOP these days. as long as you don't go full paladino
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
Bachmann is in the house. Angle will be in the senate, and the senate don't play.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:00 (fifteen years ago)
lol ppl are always sayin' this kinda thing to me but the fact that I'm articulate, talented, forceful, & incredibly attractive doesn't mean I actually have the smarts to back any of that shit up
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:04 (fifteen years ago)
ha i dunno, it's like the housing market: no way is this the turn from the 'bottom' for the GOP. '10 midterms are gonna be wild as fuck
― goole, Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:10 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark
yay me
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
like I'm living proof that being able to neatly & accurately define "nuance" doesn't necessarily mean you're capable of grasping nuance
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:06 (fifteen years ago)
re: angle the thing is, does she have any serious agenda other than to act crazy. she did nothing in the legislature in nevada iirc. national GOP doesn't seem to have had much luck reigning in the crazy this year.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)
to briefly reprise the subject of americans not knowing their geography:
only today as i passed through the town of harper's ferry did i realize that john brown did not lead that slave revolt on an actual boat.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:13 (fifteen years ago)
haha that's wonderful
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:14 (fifteen years ago)
in the midst of tea party madness, feels pretty good to be able to vote for a muslim and know he's gonna win
― moss this, moss that, moss this, moss that (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:15 (fifteen years ago)
nb re Paladino: i think that he'd be TOTALLY electable in some non-Northeast Corridor (aka "elitist liberal") state.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:16 (fifteen years ago)
Angle has us all in suspense. She's been the "I'll only give my positions once elected" candidate.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:17 (fifteen years ago)
By contrast., about three in four expressed negative views about the federal government. Less than half said they wanted the government to do more to solve problems.
this is emblematic of where the real failure is - people have this deeply ingrained illusion that the federal government is the source of all their woes, that government cannot (and SHOULD not) even attempt to solve problems. everything will just work itself out! nice corporations will take care of us all! it's just the stupidest, saddest worldview imaginable.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:20 (fifteen years ago)
it'll have to be reality-tested i'm afraid
― goole, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:22 (fifteen years ago)
this is a generation since 'government is the problem' became conventional wisdom. it's freaky to consider we're seeing the continued rippling effect of ronnie.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:24 (fifteen years ago)
reading Supreme Power right now (thx Alfred!) and struck by the contrast that FDR continually made the argument - which much of the public readily and heartily endorsed - that the federal gov't was all that stood between the "common man" and total oppression/exploitation at the hands of moneyed interests. Like, this was a narrative that was just taken for granted, and the real pushback came from people who feared the fed over-extending its power. This is now completely reversed, no one understands (or even thinks it's possible) that the federal government can solve anything.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:25 (fifteen years ago)
like, no one thinks the federal gov't protects the common man at all, and those that think it can and should are afraid that it doesn't even have the capacity to effectively do so.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:27 (fifteen years ago)
tbf, very few candidates/elected officials offer any evidence to the contrary. xp
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:28 (fifteen years ago)
national GOP doesn't seem to have had much luck reigning in the crazy this year.
From a party that has Michael WHAT UP? Steele as its chairman, I'm assuming that they're not even remotely interested in doing so.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:29 (fifteen years ago)
Well, FDR's immediate forebears were the last to think gov't can solve everything. I'm more interested in government mediating.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:30 (fifteen years ago)
People need to stop thinking there's a difference between the "national GOP" and the Tea Party.
Other than a difference in tone, name one issue on which the "national GOP" and Tea Party have split and has surprised you. The "national GOP" has endorsed insane drivel for years!
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)
Tea Party, the GOP equivalent of a WWF "rebellion"
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:34 (fifteen years ago)
Tomorrow is going to be awesome.
― Aren't there some GOP msg boards I can post on? (Dandy Don Weiner), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:35 (fifteen years ago)
Here's a piece for some of you. It's like every Obama apologist, and every bit of Democratic complacency/piety/naivete/stupidity that gets ridiculed around here, rolled into one depressing and mind-numblingly squishy fan letter:
I Still Love Obama. Love. Love. Love.
I like it and more or less agree with it.
(Beats a hasty retreat.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:35 (fifteen years ago)
We posted this earlier, and, yes, we would have ripped you a new asshole.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:36 (fifteen years ago)
It'd be awesome if a few dudes in Congress actually went all Ultimate Warrior on us. Like, replete with face paint and stuff.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:36 (fifteen years ago)
Glad I could help!
― clemenza, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:37 (fifteen years ago)
speaking of exit polls Andrew Sullivan posts some data that's as bewildering as the stuff I read in 2008.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:37 (fifteen years ago)
hahah yeah, mostly. but it is the case that had GOP nominated whoever that other nevada candidate was, and castle in delaware, they'd be winning those races going away prob
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:38 (fifteen years ago)
the new Congress is going to be way better than WWF. And more fake.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
chris wallace has a writeboard and says the GOP could pick up 60 in the house
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:41 (fifteen years ago)
hi, Don!
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:41 (fifteen years ago)
538 is saying 55-56 at the moment - on the back of bigger House wins in Indiana than expected…
― carson dial, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:42 (fifteen years ago)
theoretically this should be a heavy drinking night, if i didn't have so much work
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
I'm on my third glass of wine and will switch to shoe polish if necessary.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
and I don't even have cable.
none of this is terribly surprising considering how incompetent virtually the entire democratic party has acted if not been (i was about to say over the past couple of years but i'll just strikethrough myself here...)
― omar little, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:44 (fifteen years ago)
the republican party has to be admired for generally being utterly fearless politically (if the opposite of fearless w/r/t "sky is falling" claptrap)
― omar little, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:45 (fifteen years ago)
tonight is a vote against whomever's in power. It's going to keep happening every two years as long as the economy is shitty.
hi Al! and Daria! and everyone!
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:46 (fifteen years ago)
It's going to keep happening every two years as long as the economy is shitty.
I'm not sure about that - odds are that Dem losses now = Obama re-election in '12
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:47 (fifteen years ago)
but yeah I agree with yr first statement, that's obviously a no-brainer
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:48 (fifteen years ago)
debating whether i should have a drink or not. but it's like, everyone knows it's going to be bad. i'm sort of eh about the whole thing.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:48 (fifteen years ago)
sup Don
I predict my entire city is going to smell like skunk-weed tomorrow morning
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:49 (fifteen years ago)
people are not bonering up for conservatism today any more than they bonered up for liberalism two years ago. Independents just keep voting against incumbents. And if unemployment is this close to 10% in 2012, Obama will be booted. He's simply not that good of a pol and he never has been.
nights like this make me long for gabbneb
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
hey don!
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
tbqf it's not like the last two years have been some magical strawberry fields dream that some nasty villains are going to pop the bubble on so i'm just like w/e
― omar little, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
wait what?
no matter how bad it gets let's not start longing for nebster
― omar little, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:52 (fifteen years ago)
And if unemployment is this close to 10% in 2012, Obama will be booted. He's simply not that good of a pol and he never has been.
I think you are seriously overestimating the Republican candidate field here, sorry
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:52 (fifteen years ago)
but I also don't think the 10% unemployment will last quite that long.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:53 (fifteen years ago)
(I could be wrong about that)
i can't figure out how a candidate who could actually beat obama makes it through the GOP primaries.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
i think you may be wrong there, shakey.
still: i hold that 10% unemployment or no, there won't be a President Palin -- or a Palin-esque President.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:55 (fifteen years ago)
People, concentrate.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:55 (fifteen years ago)
ummm you are right. I forgot who every Rep prez candidate was since Reagan. Fucking dismal.
If we are anywhere near 8% unemployment in two years, it will be nothing short of amazing (go look at the numbers and see how many jobs would have to be added every month to get 2% more employment. It's scary.)
I long for gabbneb just to tease him.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:56 (fifteen years ago)
i'd LIKE for this election to be a referendum on gabbnebism -- i.e., a rejection of his strident and smug advocacy of a party devoted to Rockefeller Republicanism -- but i think that don's assessment is the correct one.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:58 (fifteen years ago)
Why I Hate Ohio -- current results from one of our judge races:
Michael Astrab (R) 78,778Bridget McCafferty (D) 57,707
The Democrat, Bridget McCafferty, is currently under Federal indictment on corruption and bribery charges as part of a years-long operation which has also resulted in one of the county commissioners and other public officials being indicted. But she's got 57,000 votes.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:01 (fifteen years ago)
she's also one of 30 judges with an Irish surname running in c.county
― browns zero loss (brownie), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:04 (fifteen years ago)
LOL true. cf Eileen Gallagher and Eileen T. Gallagher. Separate races, separate women!
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:05 (fifteen years ago)
msnbc has decided the theme of the night is 'gop purges moderates'
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:06 (fifteen years ago)
you need to apply for positions @ duke & unc & nc state if necessary
my cabinet is always full
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:06 (fifteen years ago)
I haven't wanted to touch the hard stuff yet.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:07 (fifteen years ago)
dave weigel's coverage of this campaign season is my other favorite thing
BREAKING: You lose U.S. Senate race in Delaware.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:08 (fifteen years ago)
Rubio wins in Florida -- no surprise. He won't be in the Senate long.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:10 (fifteen years ago)
christine o'd to 'dancing with the stars' imo
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:10 (fifteen years ago)
my cabinet has a 16-bottle wine rack in it
just lettin' you know mr. FL
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:10 (fifteen years ago)
You could always come here again. We offer suntans and a terrific School of Music at FIU.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:11 (fifteen years ago)
idk how msnbc fits that many egos in the room
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:14 (fifteen years ago)
Just hoping that when Durham County comes in, it'll put Price over the edge (it's looking very tight at the moment!)
― carson dial, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:15 (fifteen years ago)
why do you say that?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:16 (fifteen years ago)
you think, like i do, that he's going to be on all the GOP shortlists for VP in 2012 -- or even a possible nominee v. obama?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:17 (fifteen years ago)
Yes.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:17 (fifteen years ago)
You said so yourself earlier today.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:18 (fifteen years ago)
Christie/Rubio 2012
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:18 (fifteen years ago)
yep yep
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:19 (fifteen years ago)
I'll go out on a limb: it's Rubio vs Obama in 2012. You read it here first.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:19 (fifteen years ago)
Krispy Kreme Christie?
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:21 (fifteen years ago)
if so, Krispy Kreme is 10 lbs of Rudy Giuliani in a 5 lb douchebag. unelectable outside of the Northeast.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:23 (fifteen years ago)
2012: Christie Goes Large
― buzza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:24 (fifteen years ago)
i said it earlier today! sort of. anyway, cosign.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:24 (fifteen years ago)
he's going to start running for president ASAP
Beat out Palin in a tea party poll on 2012. He had just killed the ARC project, though.
xpost
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:25 (fifteen years ago)
could be big trouble for obama, tho my impression is that rubio is sort of an empty suit. but he's a well-spoken, young, good-looking empty suit with lots of empty rhetoric.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:26 (fifteen years ago)
sounds familiar doesn't it
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:26 (fifteen years ago)
I'll go out on a limb: it's Rubio vs Obama in 2012.
*biggest shrug ever*
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:27 (fifteen years ago)
haha, yes it does sound familiar. pres. rubio. ugh.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:28 (fifteen years ago)
Still two years out. In 2006, the projected showdown was between Giuliani and Hillary Clinton.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:29 (fifteen years ago)
"cambio you can believe in"About 135 results (0.36 seconds)
― buzza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:29 (fifteen years ago)
(some of you want to be pundits just as much as gabbriddanceneb did)
two empty suits is 2000 all over again. Maybe we'll get an actual coup with tanks! [/excited]
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:30 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 7:30 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark
Been saying this for a year now. Reading "The Tea Party and the GOP: Change You Already Believed In". It's pretty good
What effect has the tea party had on this agenda, considering that Republicans have been supporting it anyway? The Tea Party provided pressure and cover for Republicans to support this – and to oppose Obama initiatives, even when the president was very popular. It also laundered (I’m using that word neutrally) the arguments that libertarian and conservative think tanks and media were making for the Republican agenda and against the Democratic agenda. You can see one example of how this works in Kate Zernike’s new book on the tea party movement, “Boiling Mad.” At one point Zernike notes that Tea Partyers refer to cap-and-trade as “cap-and-tax.” That’s true, but they use that term because organizations like Americans for Prosperity and guests on Fox News use it. With the rise of the Tea Party movement, messaging like this took on credibility, because regular Americans were using it and repeating it back to reporters.http://daveweigel.com/?p=2412
http://daveweigel.com/?p=2412
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:31 (fifteen years ago)
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:26 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:26 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lollll
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:32 (fifteen years ago)
OH, i see what you did there.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:32 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius),
If I cut and paste your Giuliani-HRC predictions from '06, are you gonna shut the fuck up?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:35 (fifteen years ago)
i believe this is the second time (and on the second network) that's mentioned griping among dems re: evan bayh, not only walking away, but walking away with $10 million in the bank that could've helped a LOT in key races this time around
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:35 (fifteen years ago)
If I cut and paste your Bam-HRC ticket, Morbs, are you gonna shut the fuck up?
rachel maddow has no clue about west virginia politics, zero
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:36 (fifteen years ago)
evan bayh, hate that guy.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:36 (fifteen years ago)
good lyric
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)
everyone hates evan bayh, is what it seems like. well, joe scarbs probably likes him, that's it though.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
boring, Alfred
g'night
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
gabbriddanceneb!
― avinha, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:40 (fifteen years ago)
It's a full life, isn't it?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:40 (fifteen years ago)
lawrence o'donnell is def the most entertaining guy on tv right now. making big ed look foolish (not that it's difficult)
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:41 (fifteen years ago)
And a long memory.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:43 (fifteen years ago)
morbs and alfred, I think of you guys as on "my" side, so plz don't bicker, save yr ire for, you know, people who deserve it
IOW
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_E_Lru7ammuk/Shg-DBMxuXI/AAAAAAAAAbY/ynI8uiAkA7w/s400/sinead_l.jpg
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:43 (fifteen years ago)
That's really a beautiful computer image file. I like the glow on the top of Sinead's right hang!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)
sinead definitely deserves it.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)
He should know better than to accuse me of gabbnebism, especially when he made the same facile, just-thinkin'-aloud predictions as a NYC native about Giuliani and HRC a few years ago.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)
evan bayh is indianian for Lieberdouche. speaking of whom, maybe that fuckhead will finally jump across the aisle.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:48 (fifteen years ago)
hey so what're the predictions on how soon leading congressional & senatorial dems take the results of this election as a clear message that they have to kiss more gop ass, drift further to the right, and make more concessions than they already have?
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)
As soon as Morbs returns to pick on you.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:50 (fifteen years ago)
goodriverdanceneb
― john water (harbl), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:53 (fifteen years ago)
Dropping by local Republican celebration for journalistic purposes. They got Fox News on the big screens, everybody is stoked. Terrible wedding-type band is doing all Reagan-era: I love rock'n'roll, you shook me all night long, crazy train(!), summer of '69.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:54 (fifteen years ago)
It's morning in America
It's mourning in America.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:54 (fifteen years ago)
all i'm gonna say is that (a) incumbent parties generally lose midterm elections; (b) the political party in power during economically shitty times is gonna feel the brunt of the electorate's ass; and (c) the GOP got more of theres than the Dems got theres to the polls.
all else is flatulence.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 00:59 (fifteen years ago)
We know. Too bad Obama and his acolytes never explained why they were an alternative.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:00 (fifteen years ago)
We don't "do" revolutions in America, so the electorate would rather cede control to McDonnell-Boehner than try something new.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:01 (fifteen years ago)
*McConnell
eisbaer is right. idk, a lot of folks seem to have bought into this idea that the gov't is just spending too much money & divided government that stops anything from happening is.. uh, somehow going to fix the economy
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:05 (fifteen years ago)
ugh rand paul
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:06 (fifteen years ago)
rand gonna be a treat.
keeps repeating 'respect', take THAT mr aqua buddha
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
rand paul seems like a total smug know-it-all dickhead, ugh
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
haha this guy. i can't wait tbh.
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
team aqua buddha
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:09 (fifteen years ago)
Rand Paul 2010: UGH
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:09 (fifteen years ago)
yeah he is a fucking useless prick
i mean we all hate his dad but he's like the braindead neocon version of ron, who to his credit is not completely clueless on at least a few issues
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:10 (fifteen years ago)
the dubya to his dad's hw
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:11 (fifteen years ago)
special texas crazy vs special deep south smugness.. i think the second one is worse. ugh, rand paul
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:11 (fifteen years ago)
yeah that seems fair xp
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:12 (fifteen years ago)
hey at least he said america wasn't "inherently" great. a slight tip to libertarians...
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:12 (fifteen years ago)
never trust a libertarian
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:13 (fifteen years ago)
ohh girl i don't!!
adios alan grayson
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:13 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, i'll take Papa Paul's bolo-tie-wearing nuttiness over Rand Paul's fratboy-cum-Spicoli douchebaggery anyday.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:14 (fifteen years ago)
RIP Feingold. That one hurts.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:14 (fifteen years ago)
well, o'malley and senator barb won. go go people's republic of maryland <3
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
wait, who called feingold? i haven't seen that
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:17 (fifteen years ago)
Daniel and Alfred, at least it looks like 5 & 6 will have passed by night's end. Small victories.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:20 (fifteen years ago)
what a gross WAVE. republicans are so lame.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
http://uncajoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/boehner-oompa-loompa.jpg
― Hatch, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
Daniel and Alfred, at least it looks like 5 & 6 will have passed by night's end
Amendments?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:22 (fifteen years ago)
al where are you getting the feingold call from?
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:23 (fifteen years ago)
My bad -- only a few precincts reporting.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
polls seemed pretty clear cut w/r/t feingold
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:25 (fifteen years ago)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/wisconsin
― markers, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:26 (fifteen years ago)
something to keep track of -- there was a campaign to bounce all the iowa supreme court justices who voted for gay marriage
http://www.iowaelectionresults.gov/
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:29 (fifteen years ago)
at least we don't have to worry about oklahoma being overtaken by sharia law
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:30 (fifteen years ago)
yeah (rand) is a fucking useless prick
i mean we all hate his dad
*cough*
Dad opposed the Iraq invasion, unlike many of the pricks y'all voted for today.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
Amendments?― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:22 PM
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:22 PM
Yeah, the senate/house district-drawing amendments. Less gerrymandering = more competitive districts statewide (hopefully).
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
i figured those would pass. the last amendment was so tea-party loaded it was laughable. i wonder if it will pass.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:35 (fifteen years ago)
tho i think there were polls suggesting every amendment would be defeated this time?
considering unemployment figures and fucking citizens united if tonight only equals 94 in the house and the republicans can't even take the senate than color me ridiculously relieved. if the economy's on surer footing and unemployment's down to 5-6-maybe 7% obama wins reelection (where the makeup of the supreme court could seriously come into play), and the dems take back the house. the gop went all in this cycle and wrote off the hispanic vote (which they have been coveting as their 'black vote' for as long as i remember, literally was at least 25% of rove's long term thinking), there is no growth market they have not been losing to dems and the only potential growth to their base in the white female vote. still no idea how exactly citizens united is gonna keep playing out or the next two years, god only know what the next two years look like - govt shutdown pretty much a certainty, impeachment proceedings hinted at (btw a 90s theme bar just opened up in town - not sure if i should hang myself or bill myself dj oj and try to book a night spinning archers of loaf records)(same difference etc) - but i swear every time these fuckers hit a peak they manage to find a way to fuck it up grandly (referring here to republicans) and if it happens again now and that peak is just something resembling what they had in 01 after jeffords flipped but minus the white house than i can live with that, for two years at least. the next two years will be uglier and the gop will do insane stupid shit that will plz their base but turn independants back to the dems, if the economy improves. i would love it if say dems in congress showed as much insane principle, venom, and discipline as the gop has these past two years and would love it if the grass roots left showed as much passion, organization, and drive as the grass roots right has these past two years but i'm not counting on it either. i am counting on the gop thinking that a tilt in their favor today equals a permanent conservative majority in america from now to kingdom come and fucking themselves (and the country for sure) over as a result. worked last time.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:36 (fifteen years ago)
from what i've seen of returns, feingold race is surprisingly close given what the polling showed beforehand.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:38 (fifteen years ago)
at "7% reporting" - http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/wisconsin
― markers, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:39 (fifteen years ago)
i swear every time these fuckers hit a peak they manage to find a way to fuck it up grandly (referring here to republicans democrats)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:40 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:33 PM (4 minutes ago)
yeah man i know i thought i made that clear. i'm with you on this
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
i don't know what to say except, it's seemed to me that.. obama is the kind of leader he said he'd be, only a lot of people who voted for him weren't listening to what he was really saying?
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
itt morbs turning on his brothers in arms
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
Voted for my war-loving Claude Pepper-replacing incumbent who's one of only two members of the GOP gay caucus. Local politics!
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
daria the numbers i'm seeing aren't so great
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
oh, i KNOW that the Teabaggers will fuck up their good fortune. i just wish that their upcoming crackup would be private, and not threaten to fuck up the USA (and the world) in these very precarious times.
also daria OTM re Obama -- though i DID kinda hope that he'd rise to the occasion post-Lehman Bros and channel a hitherto-undetected inner FDR/LBJ.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
fucking epic balls post, much love from up north
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
dad and son oppose civil rights act also. unlike any of the pricks i voted for today. in georgia.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
i'm too depressed to look -- is the GOP going to retake the house and the senate?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
no
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:46 (fifteen years ago)
Dad opposed the Iraq invasion, unlike many of the pricks y'all voted for today.― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:33 PM (4 minutes ago)yeah man i know i thought i made that clear. i'm with you on this― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:42 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:42 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
plenty of fucking morons opposed the war for bad reasons, yall on some pat buchanan shit
― it's always random in wackydelphia (history mayne), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:46 (fifteen years ago)
there is no way the gop takes the senate, dan
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:46 (fifteen years ago)
Economies improve -- they usually do -- but to what end? Unemployment dropped to 5%, allowing Reagan to coast to a landslide in '84, but farming and manufacturing jobs were decimated. Plus, the Dems who crushed Reagan's working majority in the House weren't as liberal as this new wave of GOP congressman are conservative. I'm not too optimistic cuz I'm not Chuck Todd.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:48 (fifteen years ago)
and contrary to what Morbs thinks, I don't give a damn about "optics."
the Pauls just don't like guvmint at ALL. to oppose the Iraq War when you have that kind of mindset isn't real courage AFAIC.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:49 (fifteen years ago)
illuminating, thanks
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:51 (fifteen years ago)
dad is further to the right than reagan in 64 re: medicare, had david duke write for his newsletter, considers gays a bigger threat to america than terrorists (cuz of aids!). but he opposed the iraq invasion so it all evens out.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:51 (fifteen years ago)
that's exactly what morbs said, yeah
hah, shep just asked palin about avoiding other media besides fox news, due to her role as a contributor on fox news. she proceeds to go on about blablablabla other media is corrupt and doesn't report the facts etc.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:54 (fifteen years ago)
obama is the kind of leader he said he'd be
even worse.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:54 (fifteen years ago)
didn't you say "g'night" like an hour ago
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:55 (fifteen years ago)
hep just asked palin about avoiding other media besides fox news, due to her role as a contributor on fox news. she proceeds to go on about blablablabla other media is corrupt and doesn't report the facts etc
I wish she really talked like this.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:56 (fifteen years ago)
Ron Paul is definitely my favorite white supremacist newsletter editor.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:56 (fifteen years ago)
eh.
the empire continues to decline ungracefully. it's what empires tend to do, really. if we can throw in an '08 election every once in a while to keep the rest of the world guessing, we'll be better off than your average decadent state.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:56 (fifteen years ago)
her way of speaking is amazing, it's like.. i know she used to work on tv news, did they hand her the job of killing lots of airtime when nothing was really happening?
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:57 (fifteen years ago)
^^ what she does now really
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 01:58 (fifteen years ago)
my fave white supremacist newsletter editor is whatever lunatic leaves these weird xeroxed and stapled screeds in the magazine racks at the local borders cuz i have to say, he may be on to something about the pope.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:00 (fifteen years ago)
tony alamo!
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:01 (fifteen years ago)
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
she's still the most-est.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:04 (fifteen years ago)
splost passes in athens ga
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:05 (fifteen years ago)
i know she used to work on tv news, did they hand her the job of killing lots of airtime
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BX2aSG8RqEU/SMCmBlM9LpI/AAAAAAAABB8/McDTC7TGMok/s400/LOTS+OF+DOGS.jpg
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:13 (fifteen years ago)
which reminds me there was one post on my ballot, oconee river commissioner or something who knows, that had zero candidates, only a write in spot. how does this happen? who the hell wins this? i wrote myself in and told my coworkers to do the same (thinking maybe i'll get a free boat or something), but even then how do they know it's me? there's like 5 'james blount's in the athens area alone. i'm used to 90% of the races on my ballot having one (republican) candidate but zero candidates. i was staring at that touchscreen for like five minutes. also while we're talking election results i just wanna say 'once in lifetime' over 'surrender' is some bullshit.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:16 (fifteen years ago)
chris matthews just asked michelle bachmann if she was hypnotized, because she gives the same answer no matter what question he asks. meanwhile gene robinson/olbermann/others laugh audibly in the background
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:16 (fifteen years ago)
bachmann asks matthews if he isn't feeling that tingle up his leg. fellow pundits continue laughing in the background & now matthews is all defensive like WAHT I WAS EXCITED
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
If I was questioned by Matthews-Olbermann-Robinson, I might sound lobotomized too.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
Haven't watched TV yet btw. Internets!
tancredo loses big in colorado
phew! hickenlooper winner. wonder if this bodes well for bennet chances to hold the seat..
bright spot here in NC
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:19 (fifteen years ago)
does the GOP lose its major party status in CO?
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
? i'm seeing only 1/10 of the vote in CO-GOV, think you're calling it too early
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
any tv i watch i stream online and often it's a tampa station (not moving to tampa anytime soon btw) and from watching those ads for weeks now it blows my mind that scott could win that race.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
"of tea party supports, 87% went for republicans"
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
supporters
msnbc called it, i wasn't paying attention closely to CO-gov otherwise
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
lol oklahoma:
OK » Question » 751 - English Official Language: Yes -- 76.19%; No -- 23.81% OK » Question » 755 - Ban Intl or Islamic Law: Yes -- 70.25%; No -- 29.75% OK » Question » 756 - Health Care: Yes -- 65.21%; No -- 34.79% OK » Question » 746 - Voter ID: Yes -- 73.74%; No -- 26.26%
OK » Question » 755 - Ban Intl or Islamic Law: Yes -- 70.25%; No -- 29.75%
OK » Question » 756 - Health Care: Yes -- 65.21%; No -- 34.79%
OK » Question » 746 - Voter ID: Yes -- 73.74%; No -- 26.26%
hope the sooners lose every game.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
I really do wonder about the 13%
I should have run over Rob Steele with my car when I had the chance two weeks ago.
― romoing my damn eyes (Nicole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:24 (fifteen years ago)
also, gov. scott in florida?
MORNING IN AMERICA.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:24 (fifteen years ago)
sestak looking good - too bad we couldn't have had arlen specter tho lol
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:25 (fifteen years ago)
oklahoma -> worst state in the nation?
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
What is the question? "Do you want some health care? Or is a moist towelette ok?"
― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
This measure adds a new section of law to the State Constitution. It adds Section 37 to Article 2. It defines “health care system.” It prohibits making a person participate in a health care system. It prohibits making an employer participate in a health care system. It prohibits making a health care provider provide treatment in a health care system. It allows persons and employees to pay for treatment directly. It allows a health care provider to accept payment for treatment directly. It allows the purchase of health care insurance in private health care systems. It allows the sale of health insurance in private health care systems.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:28 (fifteen years ago)
oklahoma was the only place where obama did worse than kerry iirc?
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:28 (fifteen years ago)
health care question is allows individuals to opt out of obamacare, like nullification but on an individual level.
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:28 (fifteen years ago)
― iatee, Wednesday, November 3, 2010 2:23 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
Surely a number of independents and write-in candidates scattered about, right?
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:29 (fifteen years ago)
Feingold wouldn't let the Democratic Senatorial Campaign group run attack ads for him, and he rejected most ads proposed to help him, funded by organizations from outside Wisconsin. His opponent Johnson said outside ads were free speech. So there were alot more tv ads for Johnson than Feingold. Feingold stuck with his principles but that doesn't appear to be enough to get him back in the Senate.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:29 (fifteen years ago)
Our likely governor-elect Rick Scott defrauded Medicare and Medicaid of more than a billion dollars in the late nineties. Change you can believe in!
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:29 (fifteen years ago)
lol Oklahoma
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:30 (fifteen years ago)
i cant do anything but laugh at the sharia initiative because, i mean, jesus
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:31 (fifteen years ago)
the graphic on the screen had 11% tea party supporters who voted for dems
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:31 (fifteen years ago)
seriously! all the tampa local tv and ads make it very clear everybody there is 80 fucking years old and then some creepy looking fucker w/ MEDICARE FRAUD on his sheet can win? HOW???? sink had good ads!
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:31 (fifteen years ago)
here's my favorite oklahoma ballot question:
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law. International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons. The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties. Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:32 (fifteen years ago)
oklahoma has the courage to prevent sharia law from f--g up america. or at least oklahoma.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:33 (fifteen years ago)
oklahoma, fuck yeah! comin in to save the..
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:35 (fifteen years ago)
when you consider what kinds of losers, morons, and assholes end up in the us congress can you imagine what the fuck is in the ok statehouse?
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:36 (fifteen years ago)
ABC News just announced Feingold a loser.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:37 (fifteen years ago)
sad. it's a huge wave.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:38 (fifteen years ago)
DAVID VITTER? SINK LOUISIANA
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:38 (fifteen years ago)
fuck
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:41 (fifteen years ago)
sad but not unsurprising.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:41 (fifteen years ago)
re Feingold that is.
Daniel, are you surprised?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:42 (fifteen years ago)
that slut nikki haley wins in sc
― balls, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:42 (fifteen years ago)
Chuck Fucking Todd of all people just said: "Despite all the gains the GOP has made tonight, it's nowhere near what Pelosi and the Democrats could claim after 2008."
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:43 (fifteen years ago)
no, i'm not surprised.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:43 (fifteen years ago)
just sad about it.
It prohibits making a health care provider provide treatment in a health care system.
Ppl who vote for this should just kill themselves for the better of the rest of mankind.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:44 (fifteen years ago)
I dunno, I was focused on fears that the Republicans will do much better than this. Now they'll have a small majority in the House, Dems will have a small majority in the Senate, GOP will do everything it can to block job recovery through 2012 and may succeed (but might have succeeded even in the minority.) Basically the story is "places that are full of Republicans and are currently represented by Democrats thanks to unusually horrible Republican governance vote for Republicans."
xp i basically agree with Chuck Fucking Todd said above
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:45 (fifteen years ago)
WHY IS RICK SANTORUM ON TV EVEN FOX
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:46 (fifteen years ago)
More good news. A poster on Sully's blog:
Are you paying attention to this? Early doors, but it looks like Iowa is voting to retain its Supreme Court justices and is rejecting calls to form a new constitutional convention. These are campaigns orchestrated by people who want to reverse the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling that made gay marriage legal in the state. We had millions of dollars from outside the state flood in to convince us that our liberties were being taken away. Iowans saw through it.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:51 (fifteen years ago)
oh god can i just say. I CAN'T STAND ARIANNA HUFFINGTON. what does she know about anything?
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:52 (fifteen years ago)
nothing, she is terrible
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:52 (fifteen years ago)
it's fun to pretend that she's a bond villain
Not sure how long I'll stay up to see if MN puts a +1 on the Dems' side of the Gov. balance of power (whatever that's worth).
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:57 (fifteen years ago)
huffington is awful! what the hell does she know about uh, basically most of america? now that "the heartland is the real america" thing is BS and i don't believe in it, but i just don't have the impression she interacts with anybody other than fellow pundits and rich people & isn't too interested everyone else. that's her right but not helpful if your vocation is politics.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:58 (fifteen years ago)
we had a taser ban here that's getting roundly defeated
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:59 (fifteen years ago)
though it was close, i can still say that my (ex-)Congressman is a nuclear physicist.
OTOH, NJ's anti-health care reform Blue Dog just lost to an ex-Eagle.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 02:59 (fifteen years ago)
Thinking Giannoulias and Sestak are both going down. Too bad, since they're both making it very close, but these were races that were supposed to be in the bag for the GOP.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:00 (fifteen years ago)
Don't take away our funny handout video of Taser arrests!
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:01 (fifteen years ago)
i want to see if reid pulls it out. sorta know someone who works for him and ;_; if she'll be out of a job. not to mention the fact that a ton of dems on the hill are about to be out of a job. it sucks. i know there's plenty of griping about career politicians and all, but.. man, it would be nice if angry voters just voted out the people who weren't interested in governing the country effectively. and those weren't the people who got voted out.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:04 (fifteen years ago)
yay rush holt
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:06 (fifteen years ago)
at least tom tancredo lost
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:06 (fifteen years ago)
"We all either work for rich people, or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone." --Rand Paul
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:09 (fifteen years ago)
wait, will rick scott maybe lose?
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:10 (fifteen years ago)
rand. rand. rand. paying taxes =/ punishment.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:11 (fifteen years ago)
Local news is basically frozen while covering the Scott/Sink race.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:12 (fifteen years ago)
chuck todd is having a terrible night
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:12 (fifteen years ago)
ugh
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:12 (fifteen years ago)
it's hilarious how msnbc is discussing losses by some of the old guard dems in the house, now, and most of their audience is prob like "who the hell???" because there's been all that airtime spent on palin/bachmann/o'donnell/etc, much more important.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:12 (fifteen years ago)
I did learn from Todd that a Dingell has been in Congress since FDR was in the White House.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:16 (fifteen years ago)
and this Dingell since Ike!
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:17 (fifteen years ago)
Ron Wyden (D) wins Senate race in Oregon w/more than a 2-1 margin.
― sleeve, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:17 (fifteen years ago)
man... Feingold...
I am sad
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:18 (fifteen years ago)
chuck todd calling john dingell the most famous name in the democratic caucus was hilariously o_O to me & def supports daria's point
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:18 (fifteen years ago)
Apparently Marco Rubio's victory party boasts 300 reporters from six continents.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:19 (fifteen years ago)
(that Wyden result is a local CBS projection, polls just closed)
― sleeve, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:19 (fifteen years ago)
paladinooooooo
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
i feel like the nation should start recording "it gets better" videos for carl paladino's children
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
^ best lol of the night
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:22 (fifteen years ago)
wait what did he do
― horseshoe, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:22 (fifteen years ago)
what's the deal with rubio? right-wing catholic? ugh
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:22 (fifteen years ago)
so embarrassed by carl paladino you guys
who got led out of the paladino concession speech by security?
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
Whey-faced Cuban-American with a talent for being tight-lipped.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
dear paladino, this was a big time republican wave election year. just think of what might have been if you hadn't behaved like a complete asshole.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
― max, Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:23 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark
the black guy
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
barbara boxer & jerry brown projected to win
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:26 (fifteen years ago)
freakiest part of the rubio speech - "i will always be a child of exiles." like, i know you guys killed jfk already, give it a rest
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:26 (fifteen years ago)
gonna really miss Russ Feingold.
― del griffith, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:26 (fifteen years ago)
Tommy Lee Jones gif ftw
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:27 (fifteen years ago)
Feingold refusing to concede yet fwiw
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:29 (fifteen years ago)
atta boy
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:31 (fifteen years ago)
Cuomo dares to play "Work for the Working Man" at his victory speech, after telling the NYT he plans to fight the unions?
Paladino might have ruined "Network" for me.
― Virginia Plain, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:33 (fifteen years ago)
Has anything other than a couple of house races gone against the FiveThirtyEight predictions yet? I'm not sure why we should rend clothing and gnash teeth now when we've known for a month in Feingold's case, and several months in Sestak's case that they each had very little chance of winning.
― Dan I., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:36 (fifteen years ago)
Some of our posters still believe in Truman's campaign (also: how wrong the pundits were in '98. Remember?).
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:37 (fifteen years ago)
I was a split second away from accidentally writing "Sleestak" there
― Dan I., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:38 (fifteen years ago)
Pundits are worse than worthless. It's really been exciting to watch statistical prediction become mature since 2000.
― Dan I., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:40 (fifteen years ago)
john boehner's wife looks like a fat john boehner in lipstick
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:41 (fifteen years ago)
assuming that's his wife behind him
boehner actually plays all the members of his family, eddie murphy style
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:42 (fifteen years ago)
It's a hockey mom with lipstick.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:42 (fifteen years ago)
she is literally a mama grizzly
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:43 (fifteen years ago)
boner's gonna end this uncertainty he's been making up the past 18 months, nice of him.
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:44 (fifteen years ago)
Has anything other than a couple of house races gone against the FiveThirtyEight predictions yet?
It looks like the GOP will pick up about 10 more seats than the center of his projection -- on the other hand, Silver's been saying for weeks that this is a weird election where the confidence intervals are much wider than normal.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)
right now the american people are like who the f*** is this guy? FIRE THIS GUY
congrats america, your new speaker
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)
Every speaker of the last forty years has looked awful and not spoken like a speaker tbh
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)
boehner's all choked up about the prospect of more tax cuts for his rich buddies
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)
is he drunk?
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:47 (fifteen years ago)
boehner all ;_; about all those cuts in medicare and health care for poor children and education funding that just has to go, so he can get more tax cuts for his rich buddies. hard choices, that make him sad.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:48 (fifteen years ago)
preach, keith
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:48 (fifteen years ago)
Tuesday Night Mass-acreNovember 2, 2010 11:43 P.M.By Michael Graham
The worst place to be a Republican in America today is Massachusetts.
While the 60-seat GOP wave was washing over the rest of America, Bay State Republicans lost every single congressional race and statewide office, and they only picked up a handful of seats in the state legislature. In the midst of the Republican tsunami, Massachusetts Democrats didn’t get their hair mussed.
Good Democratic candidates like Deval Patrick — a talented campaigner — won. Lousy Democratic candidates like the candidate for auditor — who was caught cheating on her taxes just weeks ago — won, too.
And the margins in the congressional races weren’t significantly different than in any other year. Democrats got around 60 percent of the vote, while Republicans topped out around 40 percent. In the one open race, Bill Keating — an uninspiring candidate with ethical problems — went negative the entire race. By one count, he sent out eleven pieces of vicious attack mail in the last fourteen days.
It worked.
You know the saying that every dark cloud has a silver lining? Massachusetts Republicans have yet to find it.
This was the most devastating political defeat for Republicans I’ve ever witnessed anywhere. It’s devastating in part because Republicans had something they never have in Massachusetts: expectations. Modest ones, to be sure: a couple of congressional seats, maybe an outside shot at the governor’s office. Not much. Just enough wins to keep GOP voters motivated for the next election.
Not much to ask for in a wave-election year. But what did we get? Nothing. Not a single victory.
This disaster is made worse by the fact that there’s nothing to blame it on. It’s not an anti-Bush year or an anti-GOP year. It’s not that Republicans had no candidates or that all the candidates were lousy. In most other states, some of these races would have been competitive. But in Massachusetts, it didn’t matter much that there were Republicans on the ballot at all.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:49 (fifteen years ago)
i wonder how many people who didn't have health insurance gave freely from their personal $$$$ to the chamber of commerce because glenn beck said it was a good idea. just askin.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:49 (fifteen years ago)
go go harry reid! YEAH :)
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:51 (fifteen years ago)
it looks like Carly Fiorina won't fuck up in the Senate the way that she fucked up in Hewlett Packard ... not that that is a surprise. but still happy since anything i've ever bought from HP has been a complete piece of shit and for that reason alone i'd never vote for Fiorina regardless of what party she belongs to.
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:55 (fifteen years ago)
why is gawker's live blog have the most recent stuff at the bottom?
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:55 (fifteen years ago)
gabbneb loved Feingold.
just sayin.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:57 (fifteen years ago)
and I hate Boxer.
and I hate Carly even more.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 03:58 (fifteen years ago)
are you antisemitic?
just askin.
― i love you but i have chosen snarkness (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
I love, love, love Prop 19
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
But the HP-28C is a fucking glorious calculator and I will fight anyone who says not.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
too bad it's headed for defeat xp
― dinah shore, jr. (donna rouge), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:01 (fifteen years ago)
I am not antisemitic.
just answerin.
just xpostin.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
Is weed legal in California yet?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
he sucks. Angle is a loon, but he still sucks.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:03 (fifteen years ago)
in SF you need a license which is extremely easy to manufacture a counterfeit of, not sure about rest of state.
― i love you but i have chosen snarkness (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:04 (fifteen years ago)
On a night of predictable bad news, I'm pretty happy about Prop 25 passing.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:04 (fifteen years ago)
THE GREAT BAMBDINO
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:05 (fifteen years ago)
I hate Reid. He's Catholic.
I hate Rand Paul. He's a lunatic.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:06 (fifteen years ago)
can Harry Reid somke weed in L.A. yet?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:06 (fifteen years ago)
you're joking? reid's not catholic
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:07 (fifteen years ago)
Hitchens calls him the Mormon Mediocrity.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:08 (fifteen years ago)
aren't you drunk like me yet daria?
just wonderin.
― Bob's lead is hotter than a urinary tract infection (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:08 (fifteen years ago)
try out your new posting style here
― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:10 (fifteen years ago)
FOX NEWS has called it for pat toomey
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:12 (fifteen years ago)
nbc calling it for mark kirk
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:13 (fifteen years ago)
Keith seemed a bit flabbergasted that Toomey is about to make a speech with it 'too close to call'.
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:17 (fifteen years ago)
80,000 with 10% still to report. it must be for Toomey, right?
listening to the panel on the fox broadcast (west coast) saying how this is a repudiation of obama's agenda. but.. what IS obama's agenda? i mean, if you're not crazy & believing those entertainers who want to convince you that it's fascist communism, if you're actually inclined to support the agenda of a democratic president.. what is obama's agenda? because i don't actually know.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:20 (fifteen years ago)
"And when I say 'Indian', I mean India, not American Indian."
Thank you, Wolf Blitzer. Please let me know when you can bring up will.I.am up on the hologram again.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:21 (fifteen years ago)
fox called it for toomey. as well as IL-Sen for kirk (r) over giannoulias.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:21 (fifteen years ago)
fox calls nevada for reid!
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:26 (fifteen years ago)
Will he remain majority leader or will he lose it just based on sucking and almost losing the majority?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:28 (fifteen years ago)
nice
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:28 (fifteen years ago)
for whoever was asking about 538
fivethirtyeight Nate SilverTime for a Little Horn-Tooting http://nyti.ms/cpsxTt Of 339 House races called so far, our model picked 332 correctly. #nytelect
― crocodile swag district - teach me how to dundee (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:30 (fifteen years ago)
i imagine he'll stay as majority leader. idk, i kind of admire the guy. there was a fascinating article about him in the new yorker a few weeks ago, worth reading
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:35 (fifteen years ago)
amazed @ reid, really didn't expect him to survive
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:36 (fifteen years ago)
only person to outperform the projections is... harry ried. weird night.
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:38 (fifteen years ago)
goole can't spell, basically normal
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:39 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, have been thinking about this as "people come home to their roots" election so imagined Dems holding on in Illinois and Penna. but losing Nevada and Colorado.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:42 (fifteen years ago)
I really would like to see a competitive contest for majority leader, Reid be damned.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:43 (fifteen years ago)
Nights like tonight make me wish I had cable TV, just to hear someone acknowledge that states other than Illinois and Indiana exist.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:43 (fifteen years ago)
nights like tonight should not make you wish you had cable tv
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:44 (fifteen years ago)
the pollsters didn't expect reid to win either, though the best-known political reporter in the state was saying he thought reid could pull it out. and earlier on fnc they were going over exit polls & suggesting that it looked very good for him
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:44 (fifteen years ago)
Back in the bunker for Angle?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:45 (fifteen years ago)
2nd amendment remedies?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:45 (fifteen years ago)
xxxxp Ha, yeah, good point. I just came home from dinner an hour ago and wanted to zone out and watch the Reid returns.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:47 (fifteen years ago)
i know it was a lost cause for months, and i was really amazed he won even in 2008, but pour one out for Periello, I wish the dems had more like him.
― clotpoll, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:49 (fifteen years ago)
if you're really that keen on it you can usually find a feed of some cable news channels at tvpc dot com. but most of this stuff is just blablabla that eats up airtime and gets attention (christine o'donnell).. i've watched a lot of maddow and even now she seems completely baffled by the notion that people vote on other issues besides the gotcha issues/gaffes/ignorant statements she covers on her tv show night after night. i do pay attention to fivethirtyeight, national journal, dave weigel.. watching fox broadcast coverage tonight because the shep is anchoring.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:53 (fifteen years ago)
who's staying up for AK?!
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:59 (fifteen years ago)
Minnesota public radio is saying there is a possibility that both mn senate and house could swing republican, and that some inaccurate early vote reports from mpls may imply that Dayton could actually lose despite early good indications.
If I wake up tomorrow with a republican house, senate, and governor in my state I am going to disown every good thing ive ever said about fucking living here.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 04:59 (fifteen years ago)
Oh hi goole. Radio listening on the drive home was disconcerting yo.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:00 (fifteen years ago)
sure i will be up for AK
― avinha, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:01 (fifteen years ago)
oh jesus that's not good
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:02 (fifteen years ago)
don't know that there's a point in staying up for AK - they have write-ins to count - could take a week
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:04 (fifteen years ago)
great, we get reid back but not feingold or sestak
fuck this country
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:04 (fifteen years ago)
chris matthews! talkin about how big a deal it is if you lose REGULAR GUYS FROM SCRANTON. those big dudes who go to NLF games and root for the bears, browns, etc.
chris matthews, never change
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:05 (fifteen years ago)
NFL
regular guys from scranton root for the bears?!? AS IF~~STEELERS FOR LYFE
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:05 (fifteen years ago)
omg, matthews still going on about growing up in east philly. o'donnell and robinson looking at him like UH
scranton? they root for IGGLES. they hate the steelers, man
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:06 (fifteen years ago)
Oh hey goole if u aren't watching CNN anymore they just said that all 3 Iowa judges up for retention got defeated.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:08 (fifteen years ago)
And in local news, my neighbors apparently aren't willing to spend an avg of $64 per year more on property taxes to double the annual allotment contribution per public school student. Awesome.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:11 (fifteen years ago)
your country will improve immediately.
― 51 tyson (crüt), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:11 (fifteen years ago)
write-in votes up 39% in AK
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:13 (fifteen years ago)
Apparently I didn't vote hard enough.
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:22 (fifteen years ago)
Whoa write in w/40% in fact
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:22 (fifteen years ago)
my neighbors apparently aren't willing to spend an avg of $64 per year more on property taxes to double the annual allotment contribution per public school student.
yeah. i mean, what can you say? someone needs to make the argument effectively that government can actually work.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:28 (fifteen years ago)
Fuck California and its stupid propositions. No weed, no surprise but not even $18 license fee for State Parks? Yay to visit our poo-infested mudholes. Because we don't have some of the coolest state parks in the country. Seriously, fuck this state in the eye. Jerks.
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:34 (fifteen years ago)
could be worse
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:35 (fifteen years ago)
Hey CNN pls to realize that palin is a fucking joke soon
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:35 (fifteen years ago)
Like I know yer filling time and all but come on this is just embarrassing
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:36 (fifteen years ago)
palin's already realized that CNN is
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:36 (fifteen years ago)
Jesus Christ local news now reporting that w/78% reporting Dayton only leading by 2%
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:41 (fifteen years ago)
palin seems to be a joke as far as getting elected to public office again. but it's all about the money. she can raise massive amounts of cash for gop/tea party candidates basically. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ = big deal
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:42 (fifteen years ago)
It's amazing how easy it is for me to forget that she was once the governor of a state in the United States. The only time I remember is when someone brings up how she quit halfway through her term.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:44 (fifteen years ago)
John, my advice is to go to bed and wake up with a full night's sleep so you can more vigorously accept the news that Target's chosen Gov. candidate eked out a win.
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:47 (fifteen years ago)
the star tribune shows st louis country (duluth etc) running at 62% dayton with only 22% counted, so there's a lot more dayton vote to come in yet i expect. other blue counties on the range are still counting, but so are the suburbs and a few outstate counties too. kind of a nail-biter tbh.
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:47 (fifteen years ago)
I don't think palin is a subject worth ignoring tbh - not that they would either way, but she's the symbol of the modern GOP and a serious contender for the nom in 2 years. why not put her on camera?
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:49 (fifteen years ago)
Yes, put her in front of the camera as much as possible tbh.
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:50 (fifteen years ago)
Ehhhh idk Eric, blaming dayton for target is kinda sins of the father tbh
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:50 (fifteen years ago)
Xpost however yeah Eric otm re: more palin sword falling is a good thing
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:51 (fifteen years ago)
totally wrote my tbh post before goole's tbh post appeared
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:52 (fifteen years ago)
Voting funniness in Colorado. Apparently somebody's lost Boulder's votes. Or put 30,000 in the Buck column. Or something. To be worked out tomorrow I guess.
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:54 (fifteen years ago)
LOL
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:56 (fifteen years ago)
FL gubernatorial race still too close to call, thanks to slow going in the southern tip of the state (what else is new?). Rick Scott is a scary motherfucker, for reals.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:56 (fifteen years ago)
key governorships, legislatures flipping to gop = very very bad, redistricting is about to happen. not that you're going to win those elections on a process issue but damn.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:57 (fifteen years ago)
How does the strib have results before the Sec of state's website does? There, they're only showing 60% of precincts in, with Dayton up 2.7%.
― Dan I., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:59 (fifteen years ago)
Ritchie too busy celebrating reelection?
― gay nerd fuel (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 05:59 (fifteen years ago)
i'm done for the night. really wanted to see a sharron angle concession tho
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:06 (fifteen years ago)
fuckin dayton
Yes, but more important fuckin dumb mn dem primary.
Still, any port in an emmer storm. Really looking forward to being alarmist worried dude in the am if possible,
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:12 (fifteen years ago)
here guys, for your entertainment
bill clinton calls up a pittsburgh radio station for GOTV. so they ask him what he thinks about wayne getting out of prison
http://cdn-mobile.worldstarhiphop.com/u/vid/2010/10/29/buijdkweew_mobile.mp4
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:12 (fifteen years ago)
Hahaha awesome
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:15 (fifteen years ago)
haaaaa that is dope
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:18 (fifteen years ago)
that was an excellent answer too! i love bill clinton
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:19 (fifteen years ago)
Daria u save my night thx and a+
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:21 (fifteen years ago)
JerryBrown2010: @Whitman2010 A+++ CAMPAIGN. WOULD RUN AGAINST YOU AGAIN $163M WAS THROUGH PAYPAL AND SENT IMMEDIATELY
― Cunga, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:27 (fifteen years ago)
The Aloha State all dem! Very pleased.
― Super Cub, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:28 (fifteen years ago)
aqua buddha, guys. NEVER FORGET
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 06:31 (fifteen years ago)
It will go down in history as famous as the daisy nuke ad and the willie horton ad.
― The Porcupine Captain With A Crew of White Rabbits (Viceroy), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 07:19 (fifteen years ago)
except not effective apparently
― 51 tyson (crüt), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 07:21 (fifteen years ago)
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
this came too late
― deej, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 07:24 (fifteen years ago)
Still sitting up biting my nails about the MN gov. There's going to be a recount, but I think Dayton will still win. if the star tribune's site is correct, strongly dem Itasca county on the iron range is still only 82% in, and appears to be the single largest remaining pool of unreported results.
― Dan I., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:26 (fifteen years ago)
Still happy to see Ellison - MN 5 being the only race I'm able to vote on as an expat - get 68 per cent of the vote.
OH YAY RECOUNT.
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:34 (fifteen years ago)
well at least Contemptible Fucking Harry Reid won, so daria can rest easy.
Let's summarize the last 2 years, shall we?
Goddamn the useless Democrats
Goddamn useless Obama
Goddamn America
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:46 (fifteen years ago)
and Bill Clinton's mass-murdering ass to the Hague, plz
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:49 (fifteen years ago)
What changed your tune, Morbs?
― Miss Garrote (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 09:17 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:46 (54 minutes ago)
Healthcare reform is pretty damn useful for me and my family.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 09:46 (fifteen years ago)
What does it mean? Does it mean the swing voters are angry about something, or does it mean the Democrats just stayed home? I don't get it, it's a very different result from 2008.
― like you really know who trisomie 21 is (u s steel), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:08 (fifteen years ago)
Swing voters are sluts.
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:13 (fifteen years ago)
I don't get swing voting, unless you have a policy of voting for experience (incumbents) over youth. It scares me when suburban areas can't decide which party they prefer, it's like they can't decide whether they are urban or not.
― like you really know who trisomie 21 is (u s steel), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:19 (fifteen years ago)
is losing alaska and deleware going to be seen as a repudiation of palin?
― caek, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:23 (fifteen years ago)
Not so much as losing Nevada will be.
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:24 (fifteen years ago)
South Carolina and Nevada had Palin-approved candidates too xp
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:26 (fifteen years ago)
Very convinced now that gay marriage ban will make Minnesota ballot in 2012. *sigh*
― Miss Garrote (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:36 (fifteen years ago)
I heard Obama referred to as proto-Socialist which sounds hostile and politically retarded and is something I only heard coming from the far right during the Clinton years.
― like you really know who trisomie 21 is (u s steel), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:41 (fifteen years ago)
I think I'll post here in the morning, before the raging cauldron of mean people punch in...I had CNN on in the background last night, while I worked in another room. So different from 2008. The funniest line I heard was from Wolf Blitzer, even though I couldn't tell if he was trying to be funny or not (paraphrase): "Christine O'Donnell, the Delaware Republican who assured voters she wasn't a witch, will not, at least for the time being, be a U.S. Senator, either..." I have no idea where all this leaves Obama. It looked like the apocalypse in '94, too, but Clinton survived. Just in terms of crass politics, I'm sure Obama's ability to out-maneuver Boehner is at least equal to Clinton's superiority over Gingrich in that department.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 11:39 (fifteen years ago)
Begala had a great line too, if you haven't heard it already (again, from memory): "In 2008, Americans showed they were ready to elect a black president; this year, we'll find out if they're ready to elect an orange speaker."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 11:45 (fifteen years ago)
You'd think this would be an easy angle for the press.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 11:51 (fifteen years ago)
Yay, Rob Steele and Rocky Raczkowski look like they are going to lose in Michigan, last night had them both winning.
― romoing my damn eyes (Nicole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:27 (fifteen years ago)
this barely feels like a loss considering it was basically CW for the past three or four months. wow, what we thought was gonna happen happened. history again handicaps a president 2 yrs in. oh well
― deej, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:33 (fifteen years ago)
It looked like the apocalypse in '94, too, but Clinton survived.
Yeah - Clinton's ability to survive was fucking incredible. I don't have any actual love for him, catastrophic US president for a lot of people around the world, but by the end it was like -- you had to kind of be impressed by how he seemed to feed off the right's aggression, and it made them look bad. historically though I think Clinton is a unique figure -- every president to some extent is a unique figure & comparison is of limited use, but in the case of wild Bill I really think you can't say "because Clinton did this, others might, too" -- his huckster skills were nonpareil.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:38 (fifteen years ago)
felt like a dummy voting yesterday---like, had only heard about the redistricting issue the day before, on mpr, and didn't know if voting yes or no was the Correct choice
pretty sure Dayton will take it.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:48 (fifteen years ago)
Clinton was brilliant at confrontational politics, no doubt about it. The thing with Obama is...and as someone who still likes him, it's something you almost don't want to admit...I think he's real good at political maneuvering too. I know--based on the mess he wakes up to this morning, it's not the most opportune time to say that. But if you followed him through 2008, even as he was claiming that he wanted a "new kind of politics" (blah, blah, blah), his gamesmanship with the Clintons was impressive. And there were articles appearing at the time that indicated he'd always been good at that stuff. So I'm confident he can handle Boehner, even though I'm essentially admitting he's good at all the stuff people like me supposedly liked him for being above.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:55 (fifteen years ago)
I think an important aspect this time around is that, despite yesterday night, the republican party still is incredibly unpopular.
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 13:04 (fifteen years ago)
I like this argument: permanent majorities are a myth.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 13:21 (fifteen years ago)
Ugh the IL gubernatorial race is tied with 99% of precincts reporting. Quinn is not terrifically exciting but Brady is made of pure, woman-hatin', gay-bashin', crucial service cuttin' evil.
― phantoms from a world gone by speak again the immortal tale: (Jenny), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 13:24 (fifteen years ago)
every now and again you have to love the ny times' dry understatement:
Among the first things that Mr. Boehner has said he will seek to accomplish are reversing cuts to the Medicare program and extending the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, steps that are hard to reconcile with a commitment to reining in the national debt.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 13:46 (fifteen years ago)
they probably can't say boehner is an idiot, even if they believe it.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 13:47 (fifteen years ago)
Does it mean the swing voters are angry about something, or does it mean the Democrats just stayed home?
p@reene on Salon:
Useful corrective to the forthcoming media narrative about Obama voters turning against him, from the Times: "Tonight, just 46 percent of those who voted said they cast a ballot for Mr. Obama in 2008." You may recall that a majority of the electorate voted for Barack Obama. So is this "Obama turning moderate independents against him" or is this the usual trouble turning out younger, poorer, more liberal voters in the midterms?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:25 (fifteen years ago)
so Generation Change has a short attention span, who knew?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:26 (fifteen years ago)
Having both the mn house and senate flip to GOP control is so deeply troubling to me that I'm not even sure how to put it into words. Esp since the house prior to the election was a 87 to 47 dem majority. My state has gone insane.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:30 (fifteen years ago)
What's the unemployment rate in MN?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:33 (fifteen years ago)
sooo this could have been way worse i guess? bummed about sestak and feingold. rubio and that idiot rand paul were inevitabilities. no real upset there.
also boo on prop 19. and RIP grayson. gonna miss u dogg.
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:35 (fifteen years ago)
Grayson didn't need the job as a job, he has enough money, maybe now he will do things without the burden of being a politician? Altho I will miss his cutting commentary on random investigative proceedings re the financial crisis in which he eviscerates banking reps.
― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:42 (fifteen years ago)
So California is really proving itself to not quite be the bastion of liberal thought that everyone always assumed.
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:52 (fifteen years ago)
No one who actually paid the slightest bit of attention to California already knew this.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:56 (fifteen years ago)
Orange County *cough*
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:56 (fifteen years ago)
wtf @ me, that should be "Anyone"
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:57 (fifteen years ago)
"No one" is funnier. Always leave them laughing.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:58 (fifteen years ago)
I was only half serious with that comment, more of a response to all the people I head last night yipping about how "if California doesn't pass this, it'll never be legalized".
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 14:59 (fifteen years ago)
CA residents, is the passage of Prop 25 (simple majority to pass a state budget) going to actually help pull the state back from the edge of insanity?
― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:00 (fifteen years ago)
george packer pals around with tom perriello
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/11/tom-perriello-went-down-to.html
Yesterday, I ran into Senator Mark Warner, of Virginia, who was campaigning with Perriello in Martinsville and Danville. When I interviewed him over the summer for my piece on the Senate, he had said that he expected the election of some moderate Republicans, like Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware, who might be able to create more middle ground for bipartisanship. When I reminded him of this yesterday, Warner wouldn’t abandon the hope. How is it faring tonight? Not well—Castle lost to Christine O’Donnell in the primary, Kirk is losing, and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, and perhaps other Tea Party senators, are headed to Washington. I predict that there will not even be a gesture toward centrism and bipartisanship on the part of Republican leadership. They’re too scared, and too eager. Pace David Brooks, the level of extremism and partisanship I described will go up—way up. This midterm is the party’s first salvo in its first order of business, to end Obama’s Presidency. There will be little mercy and a great deal of rancor. Tomorrow we’ll find out how Obama sees the next two years. I see one of the ugliest political periods in my lifetime, which has seen a few.
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:02 (fifteen years ago)
I'm embarrassed to live in a district that keeps electing Michelle Bachmann. I think her craziness appeals to a lot of people here though :(
― monster_xero, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)
woah, hey there! mn-6, big up
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)
It has shades of 'she's a moron, but she's OUR moron!'
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:05 (fifteen years ago)
I don't think the failure of prop 19 says more about CA than the fact that the gov and senate races weren't even close - despite relatively sane, moderate republican candidates. I can't imagine prop 19 doing better anywhere at the moment. it's something that will be viable in maybe 4-8 years in CA.
― iatee, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:08 (fifteen years ago)
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:59 AM Bookmark
Are we talking about pot or gay marriage?
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:14 (fifteen years ago)
we are talking about gay pot
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:15 (fifteen years ago)
Terrorist gay pot.
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:17 (fifteen years ago)
poll pot
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:17 (fifteen years ago)
Google unfortunately proving that someone's way ahead of us on that issue.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:17 (fifteen years ago)
This could have been worse.But for the Midwest, it was the worst.
― Sock Puppet Pizza Delivers To The Forest (Sock Puppet Queso Con Concentrate), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:21 (fifteen years ago)
lol Frankenstein
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/11/john-kerry-bashes-politico-huf.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:23 (fifteen years ago)
read: fuck you, chuck schumer
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:24 (fifteen years ago)
Well this will all make it much easier for Dems & Obama to continuing caving in to Republican demands.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:24 (fifteen years ago)
I think so. Very glad this passed. It doesn't entirely roll back the totally insane 2/3rds requirement to raise taxes thing (thanks Prop 13!) but it allows for more room to maneuver around the completely insane minority Republicans in the state legislator (99% of whom have literally taken public pledges to never raise taxes on anybody, for any reason, EVER)
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:25 (fifteen years ago)
so anyway we can basically look forward to absolutely nothing getting done by the federal gov't for the next two years, and probably some half-cooked scheme to impeach Obama
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:26 (fifteen years ago)
yeah pretty much.
instead of blue dogs we'll have actual republicans to complain about.
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:27 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, more of them
Joe Biden = impeachment insurance
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:27 (fifteen years ago)
was al gore impeachment insurance?
so glad Prop 23 went down in CA. the energy industry is like the only functioning sector in this state.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:28 (fifteen years ago)
Haven't thought this in a long time while reading a politics thread, but Morbs OTM.
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:28 (fifteen years ago)
As much as the right may hate him now, Al Gore /= Joe Biden ever.
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:29 (fifteen years ago)
They won't impeach Obama.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:32 (fifteen years ago)
no they won't (Senate will never go for it), but I bet someone tries.
this basically went entirely as expected, honestly the most annoying thing is the breathless press reporting about the "stunning" results etc
I don't think I'll read any news analysis today...
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:32 (fifteen years ago)
so, rick scott, huh?
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:33 (fifteen years ago)
i suppose hating obama is all they have to keep themselves running the same direction. once you take an ax to an actual budget line things get less fun.
here's something to make you feel worse:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78892/the-house-republican-and-it-aint-going-back
― goole, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:34 (fifteen years ago)
fuck you
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:34 (fifteen years ago)
I predict that there will not even be a gesture toward centrism and bipartisanship on the part of Republican leadership. They’re too scared, and too eager.
yeah, this. CW has it that fired up right wing tea partiers will punish anyone who compromises even a little bit. given that republicans were always going to take back the house this time around, i don't really buy the arguments put forward by people like robert reich (who i have a lot of time for) that obama miscalculated by doing HCR right after the stimulus package. i think he calculated exactly right: the next two years will be a devolution into gridlock. jesus fuck it's going to be the dog days of clinton all over again except without tech stocks and house prices floating everyone's boats and with a press corps even more ensconced in their batshit versailles.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:36 (fifteen years ago)
More reasons to keep a watchful eye on Marco Rubio.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:37 (fifteen years ago)
instead of in addition to blue dogs we'll have actual republicans to complain about.
Let's count how many times "bipartisanship" shows up in Dem speeches today...
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:37 (fifteen years ago)
I continue to be amazed at how the Repubs managed to convince middle and lower class Latinos that voting for them would be in their best interest.
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:38 (fifteen years ago)
wait, what would be the conceivable basis for attempting to impeach pres. obama?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)
is monica lewinsky back?
looking forward to the latest innovations in the dominant GOP narrative. like by christmas 2011 half the country's going to believe the recession started after obama took office
― kamerad, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:44 (fifteen years ago)
Bachmann has been going around the interviews in the run-up to the election saying she would seek to investigate and impeach the President and the Democratic members of Congress for "UnAmerican" activities.
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:45 (fifteen years ago)
ffs
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:45 (fifteen years ago)
No one will impeach Obama. just gridlock imo. Also from what I saw on polling re prop 19 it's basically a generational thing? give it another few election cycles and it'll prob pass.
Worried about legislatures flipping in so many key states though. Awful timing, GOP going to redraw to lock in a lot of seats.. I guess more fighting health care tooth and nail too. But they won't repeal it.
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:47 (fifteen years ago)
it's basically a generational thing? give it another few election cycles and it'll prob pass.
This is what I keep thinking about the whole racist Tea Party, "take back my country" thing, but I keep hearing about more and more young people buying into it.
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:48 (fifteen years ago)
http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Picture-18.png
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:48 (fifteen years ago)
by christmas 2011 half the country's going to believe the recession started after obama took office
i have no doubt this statistic is already true.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:49 (fifteen years ago)
don't be so sure they won't impeach obama. reasonable people wouldn't even think of it, but they're shameless nihilists. top 4 investigations coming down the pike -- black panther party; joe sestak job offer; acorn; bp oil spillhttp://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/the_gop_plan_to_investigate_obama_the_first_four_potential_investigations.phpif he wins re-election, it just might be 1997 all over again
― kamerad, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:50 (fifteen years ago)
Canadian posters, whats a good city that needs architects?
― "I am a fairly respected poster." (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:53 (fifteen years ago)
don't be so sure they won't impeach obama. reasonable people wouldn't even think of it, but they're shameless nihilists.
true that but some of them surely know how to count votes. plus 97 wasn't that long ago, everyone remembers what a waste of time it was... I'm thinking they & Roger ailes will come up with new, different ways to make Dems lives miserable and make sure the top 1% keep getting richer while everyone else is screwed over
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:56 (fifteen years ago)
won't be palin/bachmann in 2012.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:56 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know, I was talking w my roommate the other day about this. We both have dads that were into the Tea Party for a while, and it def seems like a Male Baby Boomer thing. Maybe for them it's a new chance for middle-age political rebellion like they did back in the heyday of the 60s. Tack that on to the fact that the Baby Boomers were brought up during the cold war and went through a lifetime of anti-Communist anti-Socialist propaganda, and no wonder they turned out the way they did.
To me and my generation, Communists aren't quite so real; they're more a funny cartoon threat in an old movie.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)
oh i hope they try to impeach obama. best thing -- politically -- that can happen to him, i think.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)
serious about this. if the basis is his "un-american tendencies," it's shamefully frivolous and it will energize his supporters.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:58 (fifteen years ago)
, i don't really buy the arguments put forward by people like robert reich (who i have a lot of time for) that obama miscalculated by doing HCR right after the stimulus package.
would've preferred that he prioritized climate change legislation over the HCR bill, but that's just me. I won't really need healthcare if the food supply is totally destroyed, my city is underwater, and there's no power
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:58 (fifteen years ago)
Supreme Court Justice - David L. BakerVote for 1 Precincts Reported 1774/1774Yes Non-Partisan 448479 45.8%No Non-Partisan 530631 54.2% Supreme Court Justice - Michael J. StreitVote for 1 Precincts Reported 1774/1774Yes Non-Partisan 445887 45.56%No Non-Partisan 532699 54.44% Supreme Court Justice - Marsha TernusVote for 1 Precincts Reported 1774/1774Yes Non-Partisan 440509 44.96%No Non-Partisan 539317 55.04%
well done maggie gallagher
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:59 (fifteen years ago)
what would be the conceivable basis for attempting to impeach pres. obama?
a question many Tea Partiers are asking themselves at exactly this moment
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:59 (fifteen years ago)
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, November 3, 2010 10:56 AM Bookmark
Don't blame me for my wishful thinking.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:00 (fifteen years ago)
what would be the conceivable basis for attempting to impeach pres. obama?_______________________________a question many Tea Partiers are asking themselves at exactly this moment
_______________________________
bring it on, dummies.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:02 (fifteen years ago)
Don't ever change, Yahoo Front Page:
http://l1.yimg.com/a/i/ww/news/2010/11/02/gopwins.jpg
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:02 (fifteen years ago)
Guys, the only difference between the GOP and the Tea Party is energy.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:02 (fifteen years ago)
and sweatshirts
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:03 (fifteen years ago)
i thought it was sweatpants
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:05 (fifteen years ago)
whoa eyes up dude
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
It's NEW IDEAS, people!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
Greenwald as usual talking sense:
Half of the Blue Dog incumbents were defeated, and by themselves accounted for close to half of the Democratic losses. Some of us have been arguing for quite some time that the Rahm-engineered dependence on Blue Dog power is one of the many factors that has made the Democratic Party so weak, blurry, indistinguishable from the GOP, and therefore so politically inept, and would thus be stronger and better without them -- here's a 2008 Salon article I wrote making that case. Despite viewing last night's Blue Dog losses with happiness, I wouldn't point to this outcome as vindication for my argument, as there are many complex factors that account for last night's crushing of Congressional Democrats: widespread economic suffering, anxiety over America's obvious decline, the perception that Obama has done little to undermine destructive status quo forces and much to bolster them, etc. etc.
But for slothful pundits who want to derive sweeping meaning from individual races in order to blame the Left and claim that last night was a repudiation of liberalism, the far more rational conclusion -- given the eradication of 50% of the Blue Dog caucus -- is that the worst possible choice Democrats can make is to run as GOP-replicating corporatists devoted above all else to serving corporate interests in order to perpetuate their own power: what Washington calls "centrists" and "conservative Democrats." That is who bore the bulk of the brunt of last night's Democratic bloodbath -- not liberals.
* * * * *
One other point about the standard pundit line: for all the giddy talk about the power of the "Tea Party" -- which is, more than anything else, just a marketing tactic for re-branding the Republican Party -- the reality is that the Tea Party almost certainly cost the GOP control of the Senate. Had standard-issue GOP candidates rather than Tea Party fanatics been nominated in Delaware, Colorado, Alaska and Nevada, the Republicans would have almost certainly won those seats (in Alaska, rejecting the GOP incumbent in favor of a Tea Party candidates appears to have ensured that Lisa Murkowski will return to DC as a GOP-hating reject rather than a loyal Republican, the way Joe Lieberman returned after 2006). That's not a criticism of the Tea Party -- I think it's admirable to support candidates who represent one's views and be willing to take a few extra losses to do so -- but the Tea Party storyline from last night is one that is far from unadulterated success; in the case of Senate control, it's quite the opposite.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:08 (fifteen years ago)
Aaaargh! That made me think about some middle-aged guy with a misspelled sign Porky-Pigging at some rally and now I want to erase my brain.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:09 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i think greenwald's way off-base, but whatevs.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:09 (fifteen years ago)
will have to discuss later.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:10 (fifteen years ago)
A centrist Democratic party is fucking terrible because it shifts the natural point of compromise into something awful as opposed to merely sub-optimal.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:12 (fifteen years ago)
I pretty much agree w him there. The narrative (mostly driven by republicans) will be the extremely liberal policies of Obama & crew cost them the election, and the party must move rightward. When in fact the opposite is actually the case.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:15 (fifteen years ago)
I agree GG is off base. what other kind of Dem is going to win those districts?
― powerpoint coordination specialist, chicago bears (daria-g), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:15 (fifteen years ago)
None. That's the point. The Rahm strategy was a mistake - another example of thinking of elections as "victories" instead of legislative accomplishments. Look at the nightmare the Blue Dogs created.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:19 (fifteen years ago)
*instead of possibilities of legislative accomplishments.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:20 (fifteen years ago)
The Civil War is finally ending and the re-alignment that makes much of the South w/its Jeffersonian tradition of localism finally adhere to the Republicans is also slowly going to kill Blue Dogs imho. The one thing that keeps them alive is their friendliness to business money and the looniness of the radical Right but I think they're an endangered species in the long run. I wonder if what the country really needs is a Democratic-Republican centrist party so the Democrats can be unabashed progressives, the Republicans can be populist social conservatives and the voters can have a choice between enthusiasm and occasional competence.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:20 (fifteen years ago)
I agree with GG and Alfred, frankly
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:22 (fifteen years ago)
Remember the so-called Boll Weevils Democrats of the early eighties? The Blue Dogs are another iteration.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:23 (fifteen years ago)
The Civil War is finally ending and the re-alignment that makes much of the South w/its Jeffersonian tradition of localism finally adhere to the Republicans is also slowly going to kill Blue Dogs imho
see, I would like to kill them quickly
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:23 (fifteen years ago)
The Blue Dogs used to have a purpose of sorts. Now they just annoy both parties w/o contributing much in exchange.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:25 (fifteen years ago)
Whether this election was a "referendum" on Obama, the fact remains that, apart from his ruinous foreign policy, I'll support the feeble half-measures in getting health care to every citizen, making credit card bills more comprehensible, giving college kids easier access to Pell Grants, and passing some kind of financial "reform" in front of any Republican. This is what we elect politicians for, not so Chuck Todd can babble about "magic numbers" all night.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:26 (fifteen years ago)
it's so depressing listening to vox pops outside the polling stations.. basically just one after another, people say
- government is too big- government is trying to do too much- business, not government, creates jobs- taxes are too high- "socialized medicine" is a horrible idea- etc etc
when can we get out of this moronic fucking binary where one party supposedly is for "big government" and the other party is "against" it?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:29 (fifteen years ago)
after the country collapses
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:29 (fifteen years ago)
"i voted republican because i believe in small government"
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
wtf does that even fucking MEAN
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:32 (fifteen years ago)
It means you are an idiot.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:32 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i wouldn't mind some talking head pinning down some tea party/GOP douches about how big their staff was going to be in service of the ideal of small govt
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:33 (fifteen years ago)
i heard some ersatz gwb advisor being interviewed by the BBC and she was like "we need to get back to the era of small government, get the economy moving again" and the interviewer said "what policies are republicans proposing to accomplish those two goals?" and the advisor was audibly taken aback, she was like "well, we've got some proposals out there, and uh, we hope the administration joins us in our effort to create jobs and get this country on the right track" and the interviewer was like "what are the proposals?" and the advisor was just like GUHHHH
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:36 (fifteen years ago)
America will not be safe until Marco Rubio is out licking his own envelopes in a two man tent out on the capitol mall.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:38 (fifteen years ago)
oh and to answer someone up there (alfred i think?) the MN unemployment rate is well below the national average, so that isnt it. we just somehow turned into assholes at some point when i wasnt looking.
i should prob start a different thread to ruminate about what the hell happened in MN tho rather than cluttering this one up.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:41 (fifteen years ago)
Why two man?
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:41 (fifteen years ago)
my friend on fb got into a big thing with me about 'welfare', like (aside from SS and Medicare) that's even been an issue in the past decade.
I just wish someone would say that the economy has been growing steadily (if a little slowly) for the past year, and it's the private sector that isn't hiring anyone.
The tax credit extensions will be interesting. I think MSNBC was making more of an issue about raising the debt ceiling than they needed to. I can't imagine Rand Paul being crazy enough to send the country in default.
― No Good, Scrunty-Looking, Narf Herder (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
why to always have a place where his constituents can have direct access to him of course.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:44 (fifteen years ago)
That was the most depressing thing about last night (ditto our recent Toronto mayoral election): hearing Boehner immediately launch into the broken-record shrinking goverment speech. I'm not oblivious to Obama's faults, even if I sometimes pretend to be. But Republican thought literally begins and ends at shrinking government--or, more accurately, pretending to care about shrinking government.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:44 (fifteen years ago)
a public that believed gw's lies about weapons of mass destruction believes gop lies about death panels and the economy isn't growing and obama raised taxes. same as it ever was. i know it's been said before but i wish the democrats would learn to play a little dirtier
― kamerad, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:47 (fifteen years ago)
or even learn to play
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)
note: i support playing dirtier, but i recommend leaving aqua buddha out of it
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:50 (fifteen years ago)
I mean, assuming you have concrete facts on your side, it should be pretty fucking easy to say "you are an insane lying moron and this is why"
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
I almost want to let Joe Miller and his tea party fucktards push through their 23% national sales tax and eliminate the income tax and see how much people like income tax all of a sudden.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:33 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
this is the kind of shit our country needs...
― only! assholes! write on doors! (Drugs A. Money), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:52 (fifteen years ago)
didn't work for graysonxposts
― buzza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
yeah it's not about playing dirty it's about having the foresight and the organization and the discipline and the network of disseminators to hammer home simple stories that everyone understands - the republicans have like a 25-year head start on the democrats in this respect. everyone can recite the republican mantras. what are the democrats'? who knows?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
it's been said before but this success of republican messaging has made being a right-wing radio pundit the easiest job on earth. take ANY development in politics anywhere and interpret it through these prisms:
- government is too big- government never does anything right- liberals think they're better than you
what have liberals and/or democrats and/or progressives come up with that even comes within spitting distance of these all-conquering memes?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:56 (fifteen years ago)
tbf part of the reason it didn't work for Grayson is because he didn't just treat the opposition like that; he treated EVERYONE like that, and therefore people technically on his side weren't willing to back him up
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:56 (fifteen years ago)
to add to the chorus of shoulds, it seems clear to me that democrats need to be united around the interests of working people, with "working people" defined as basically everyone. this ought to be the line that connects rural, suburban and urban districts, since culture isn't going to do it. chris matthews is pretty hilarious with his constant mythic evocation of hardhats named jaworski who go to mass and like-a to watch-a the football, but he's not really wrong, just too specific
that said, folks just need to have patience. this win won't be any more permanent than obama's in 08 or the terror bloodbath in '02 or any other 'wave'.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
He's a genius.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
btw your president's speaking now.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:04 (fifteen years ago)
That was the most depressing thing about last night (ditto our recent Toronto mayoral election): hearing Boehner immediately launch into the broken-record shrinking goverment speech.
in times of trouble, go with what you know.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:07 (fifteen years ago)
Our finest local crazyface snakelady Michelle Bachmann just had her camp officially announce that she would consider accepting the chair of the Republican Conference if it was offered to her.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:09 (fifteen years ago)
the iowa justices shit bums me out but it doesn't surprise me
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:10 (fifteen years ago)
first time it's ever happened in iowa!
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:12 (fifteen years ago)
it's been said before but this success of republican messaging has made being a right-wing radio pundit the easiest job on earth. take ANY development in politics anywhere and interpret it through these prisms:- government is too big- government never does anything right- liberals think they're better than youwhat have liberals and/or democrats and/or progressives come up with that even comes within spitting distance of these all-conquering memes?
otm
also I will needlessly point out how the venn diagram describing the intersection of "small govt" and "pro-war" voters is basically a circle
is there literally ANYthing that costs our govt more than our foreign adventures?
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
"Without the federal government, your great-aunt dependent on Social Security would likely starve."
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
"Without the federal government, you could not drive to work on the interstate."
recently, nothing. obama's 2008 campaign came close, taking advantage of people's natural tendency to look to gov't for action when the economy is terrible.
taking the long view, liberals and/or democrats and/or progressives have had a lot of messaging success. there are a lot of people who rattle on-and-on about the evil of entitlements, but they cherish their social-security checks. that isn't 100% due to liberal messaging and/or success (there's a deeper set of psychological and social issues at play), but it's part of it.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
bah; alfred got there first, and more eloquently.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
the dems have memes they could drop but the problem is whenever they even hint at painting all conservatives with the same brush, the republicans get offended and demand repudiation and the dems usually concede, then when the situation is reversed there's barely an apology or backtracking. this is because the republicans know how to play the game a little better.
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
or maybe their coalition is more homogenous on those issues.
but make immigration the issue, and watch them squirm.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
"Without the federal government, your children would drink water with ammonia."
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
broder somehow draws the same lesson no matter what the situation...
Instead, he should return to his original design for governing, which emphasized outreach to Republicans and subordination of party-oriented strategies.
outreach to republicans. yes. that'll be great.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
"Without the federal government, the Beatles would never have appeared on `Ed Sullivan.'"
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
like i said: eloquently.
immigration, btw, seems to me a good issue to drive into mario rubio's heart like a stake.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
Alfred and Daniel those are specific examples - facts, even - rather than memes or messaging
I'm talking about something along the lines of
- Republicans just care about fat cats
or
- Left to its own devices, big business can't be trusted
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)
harder message to sell, imo.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:28 (fifteen years ago)
but i agree with you that democrats haven't handled messaging well.
Oh, I don't work for Madison Avenue. Get Don Draper to sit down with me.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:28 (fifteen years ago)
the left needs to have their own angry splinter movement that doesn't involve trashing nike shops whenever a world financial conference is in town
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
Besides, it's easy: "Republicans don't care if your children drink poisoned water" or "Republicans don't care about building roads."
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
Is it my imagination, or did the war(s) go completely unmentioned during this election cycle?
― Son of Sisyphus of Reaganing (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
the left could at least have the benefit of actual anger rather that worked-up pretend anger masking anger at a guy named obama being president.
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
soooo unions?
lol jk
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
the thing is, democrats are themselves beholden to "big business," that's the problem. (and fat cats, too. it can't be repeated enough that obama got more wall street money than mccain did.)
past a certain point you have to accept that democrats aren't just "cowardly" or "disorganized" -- though they may be those things, too -- they're corrupt. ok, "better than republicans," but still. and post-citizens united, it's just likely to get worse.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
"corrupt," or just unable or unwilling to break their connections to big-business, i.e., break away from what's worked and what's the accepted means of big party politics in america?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
what's the difference? Money on this scale is corrupting.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
i am a fan of the "hey almost everybody, the actual rich people in america pay less money in taxes percentage wise than you" message but apparently thats a little to number crunchy and complicated to sell well or something
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
politics is power, NOTHING more!
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
those don't work, it has to be something affirmative. "I'm getting the best deal for people who work for a living, period."
gotta love the morning after message game...
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:34 (fifteen years ago)
you can be pro-business and still contend we have to keep an eye on them. That's the Republicans' basic line about government: you can't trust it (yet the people saying this are... politicians)
no jjjusten i think there's something in the "fairness" meme.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:34 (fifteen years ago)
i'm not trying to play semantics games, but saying the democratic party is "corrupt" sounds different to me than saying the democratic party accepts corporate money, which is a "corrupting phenomenon."
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:34 (fifteen years ago)
One of the most WTF things over the last year is how little the Administration has trumpeted the jobs created with stimulus money. My company has created 24 jobs with stimulus money over the last year and I'm hiring a few more right now and I'm sure we'll have more by the end of the year. These are good jobs in manufacturing and R&D with benefits. Add to this that I've spent nearly $750,000 on american made plant and equipment, counting only the large purchases.
It astounds me that we haven't had to tell anyone about this. When the EU funds something back home you better be sure that it has a massive " Funded by the EU, F U Bitches" sign attached to the edifice in question. We have had to do nothing, no talking to the press, no community involvement, nothing. Yet here we are creating good jobs in a swing state. Instead the conversation is taken over by Chris Christie and people who want to emulate him by boldly turning down economic development whilst the infrastructure of the US crumbles to third world standards.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw Boehner's fucked imho and I look forward to his career going down in flames
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
why you say that?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
My company has created 24 jobs with stimulus money over the last year and I'm hiring a few more right now a
^^^similar story with my company tbh
yeah. ed's point is well-taken. i truly believe obama's programs saved the country from a likely depression.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
that's not a good political message -- "things are bad, but they could have been much worse!" -- but it doesn't diminish the accomplishment.
(and fat cats, too. it can't be repeated enough that obama got more wall street money than mccain did.)
these are betting men getting in on the right horse. after the dodd bill they all switched!
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
because Boehner's in an impossible position to navigate - he has people in his party who will happily betray him/go after him should he do anything counter to their completely insane and irrational demands, he's a relatively inept and clumsy politician, he cannot deliver on any significant legislative promises without cooperating or compromising with the Senate and Obama, which will in turn damage him politically, etc. dude is screwed.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
It's not even "things are bad, but they could have been much worse!", it's "Hey we spent money to create jobs and we created jobs!"
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:38 (fifteen years ago)
how about some bumper stickers that say "Vote Republican: We'll put you in the soup line, but at least we'll blame Mexicans for it."
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
basically there are too many competing interests breathing down Boehner's neck and there's no real way to accomodate all of them without destroying himself. we have seen this phenomenon before.
xp.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
In one of my classes last week at my red-state midwestern university, I played as Nietzsche circa Genealogy of Morality & pushed his "fuck benevolence" view hard, & most of my students, who are by and large middle class (we don't really do rich out there), were like, "yeah!" i.e. "why should we care about other people? fuck em, especially the free riders that are ruining America right now". & I guess for me that's the essence of what "the average Republican", not the rich ones, are coming around on: so I'd like to see the Dems run on a platform that makes this clear, both how the enemy is just selfish & why a non-selfish state is better than a selfish one. I don't know if the current Dem party really thinks that though! I was on board with Obama b/c I thought his organizational views showed that he was gonna push for a less selfish nation, but with the present (and likely future) economy, it's not shocking that people are like "I gotta got mine, fuck the rest of you". What motivates people more than anything, I've found over the years, is maintaining their present standard of living. Most Americans aren't going to be able to do that, since they were already living at a higher standard of living than was sustainable. The fight is over how the decline is going to be shared: by everyone or only by the lower classes (never mind all the stuff about how the economy isn't really a zero-sum game b/c that's just theoretical economics that persuades almost no one).
/ ramble ; jet lagging in a socialist nation overseas so forgive me
― Euler, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
Ed and Shakey, what do you guys do?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
I make batteries.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
I'd like to see the Dems run on a platform that makes this clear, both how the enemy is just selfish & why a non-selfish state is better than a selfish one.
democrats would make that more clear if it's a message that would succeed. but it would fail.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
the problem is many dems are concerned not with appealing to their core but trying to expand their core to include conservatives. republicans don't give a shit about that, it seems.
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
I work for an energy engineering firm - we run huge programs to reduce energy usage in the state of California and save people money.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
i really don't have a read on boehner. no idea what he's like. i figure if he's been in there as long as he has, he probably knows how to skate by.
i try to be fair to my right-wing fellow citizens, but since i basically hate them, no, boehner will be fine. they are easily impressed with themselves in hearing the same symbolic code-phrases no matter what the facts end up being, all the Speaker will have to do is play-act that shit they'll the thrilled.
"we have seen this phenomenon before", yes, and it resulted not in newt gingrich, never speak this trollish failure's name again, but newt gingrich, genius and culture hero.
the laws of physics to not operate over there.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
shorter version of my long bs:
the end of America as a Christian nation is gonna have some consequences that a lot of you won't like
― Euler, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:44 (fifteen years ago)
I think touting government job creation is a dead-end. A huge hunk of those jobs were temporary census work, which is something but still not really worth boasting about.
Only silver lining for me is that the population dynamics still skew Democrat. The Tea Party folks - and Republicans in general - remain overwhelmingly old and white. Granted, an entire generation of conservatives could die off from heart problems and accidental gunshot wounds and still retain power, if the young, not as white Democratic bloc doesn't vote, but it really does seem a matter of waiting out the crazies at this point. Of course, by then our big government will be working overtime to cope with their mass retirement, and the laws of irony dictate that young people will suddenly skew conservative, sick of paying their medical bills and benefits.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:45 (fifteen years ago)
newt gingrich, never speak this trollish failure's name again, but newt gingrich, genius and culture hero.
I dunno about this evaluation tbh. Newt is still pretty verboten as a failure and an unreliable crank in a lot of circles, including some conservative ones
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:45 (fifteen years ago)
I should have
"YOU'VE BEEN STIMULATED"
printed on the back of my business cards.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:46 (fifteen years ago)
He's THEIR crank, though, and the punditocracy values him as an "ideas man" and valuable contributor to Cokie Roberts' brunches.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
political movements are pretty adaptable, eventually. if white populism really becomes a losing idea, the GOP will drop it. and then they'll move on to something else! or more likely, the range of people who get to be "white" in that calculation will just be expanded a little bit. marco rubio, white man, e.g.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
this is true but tbf people have been saying it for 20 years or more.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:48 (fifteen years ago)
also what goole just said. someone like marco rubio -- who could get the GOP's white vote and slice off a large % of the hispanic vote -- could be a formidable political force.
this is true and I don't dispute it, but the important thing to note is that his liabilities have kept (and will in all likelihood continue to keep) him out of office. his impact on actual policy as enacted is pretty negligible.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
not really - pretty soon this country will no longer have a white majority. and that's a huge deal.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
Isn't Rubio Cuban, though? And Cubans have been a reliable Republican voting bloc for decades. They're like the only immigrants Republicans don't want to send back.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:51 (fifteen years ago)
yes, he is.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:52 (fifteen years ago)
this is why i said upthread that immigration may be the issue to use against rubio.
Rubio is Cuban-American.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:54 (fifteen years ago)
i.e. not born in Cuba.
rubio on immigration. flank exposed: "Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. . . States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile."
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)
drive it into his heart in 2012 with GOP voters.
I don't know – that's an answer of incredible shrewdness. Note how he blamed the Obama administration for the temptation to want to enforce Arizona's draconian laws.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, but republicans are very sensitive to "shrewd" answers on immigration. a lot of their core constituency wants a blunt, aggressive, and unshaded answer. rubio's isn't it.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 17:59 (fifteen years ago)
it isn't perfect, alfred. but i do see it as a serious weakness for him.
got to size up the competition.
immigration divides the dems as much as the GOP, if not more so. the only real split on the right (aside from a small number of non-anglo conservatives like rubio) is between the investor class who loves cheap labor and the vast voter base that hates mexicans
i don't think anyone wants to touch it.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
hm. yeah, but i think it's a special problem for republicans.
also: scan the comments beneath that answer.
no-one on the florida ticket stood to rubio's right on the immigration issue, and it would make no sense for crist or meek to make much of an issue of it. so it's largely unexplored territory.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:01 (fifteen years ago)
also the GOP is totes willing to allow for vague evasive answers on their side, its kinda built into the stuffed shirt structure of most of these dudes - eg if clinton had been one of theirs during the definition of is is thing they would have all been "oooooh sick burn bill!"
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:03 (fifteen years ago)
GOP, maybe. "tea party," no.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)
well for the Tea Party, instead of evasive answers you get blank stares and nonsensical rambling
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i think the tea party is cut from the folksy GWB/Palin cloth where faux (or real) idiocy substitutes for double speak but at the end of the day, people (repub types more but thats just my bias i guess) are always willing to turn a blind eye unless the dude opposed to you is doing it.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:08 (fifteen years ago)
I think it's pretty obvious that Democrats are more likely to eat their "own" vs Republicans, vis a vis the Blue Dog conversation upthread combined with "party unity" being strongly against the core of Democrat identity.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:10 (fifteen years ago)
"Mr Obama pledged to find common ground with the Republicans on key issues...."What is absolutely true is that without any Republican support on anything it's going to be hard to get things done. But I'm not going to anticipate that they're not going to support anything."
lol
"I believe the healthcare bill will kill jobs, ruin the best healthcare system in the world and bankrupt our country," Mr Boehner said.
also lol
― Euler, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
sad that, for whatever their flaws, the HCR and financial reform bills are likely to get gutted.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:14 (fifteen years ago)
There's another great example of Republican message discipline. Despite mountains of factual evidence to the contrary, "best healthcare system in the world" is an article of faith. So they say it, and say it again, and say it some more, and their radio apparatus says it, and their apparatchiks at FOX News say it, and their core voting bloc has it so ingrained into their heads that they just open their mouths and out it comes. How the fuck do you fight something like that? Facts alone aren't enough.
xposts
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)
the best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the worldthe best healthcare system in the world
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
silver lining for me is that the population dynamics still skew Democrat. The Tea Party folks - and Republicans in general - remain overwhelmingly old and white. Granted, an entire generation of conservatives could die off from heart problems and accidental gunshot wounds and still retain power, if the young, not as white Democratic bloc doesn't vote, but it really does seem a matter of waiting out the crazies at this point. Of course, by then our big government will be working overtime to cope with their mass retirement, and the laws of irony dictate that young people will suddenly skew conservative, sick of paying their medical bills and benefits.
laws of irony say that the "new society" that people wait and prepare for almost always reject or disappoint the very people that paved the way for them.
It's like the father that says "my sons' a brat now, sure, but when he gets older he'll appreciate me and all I've done for him."
You never know.
― Cunga, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
I don't think this is likely
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)
the details are lost on me but so much of HCR is dependent on states, and there were fifty little bloodbaths last night
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:31 (fifteen years ago)
outright repeal isn't likely, but gutting the funding for certain key provisions of the HCRA is.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:32 (fifteen years ago)
That's some black-is-white up-is-down insanity re: healthcare.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
as a maryland voter, i am most excited about the new mall/slot machine complex that will immediately improve our children's schools
― another al3x, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)
a bunch of it's already gone into effect but yeah they'll probably attack pieces of it. budget showdown fights are likely across the board though.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:44 (fifteen years ago)
will the slot machines be in your children's schools?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:44 (fifteen years ago)
i would endorse this policy proposal.
Just for giggles, I read back issues of TIME published between Nov. '82 and Jan '83 when the GOP lost 25 seats in the House (and operational control over Boll Weevils) and four in the Senate. The frequency with which the tropes recur amazes me: the "message" from the election was it's a "second and last chance" for Reagan to keep from moving the country "too far" to the right, yet the Dems aren't trusted with the economy either, etc. The Republican GOP minority leader Bob Michel won re-election by the slimmest of margins. Reagan had exactly the Senate numbers as Obama currently boasts (51-46). Ten percent unemployment. In the January issue, "senior administration officials" leaked that they advised Reagan to "quietly" not run for re-election in '84 since neither governors, Wall Street, nor the chamber of commerce trusted him to get the economy 'going' again.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:46 (fifteen years ago)
YES BUT THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:47 (fifteen years ago)
WTF has Obama done so far?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:48 (fifteen years ago)
Just for giggles, I read back issues of TIME published between Nov. '82 and Jan '83 when the GOP lost 25 seats in the House (and operational control over Boll Weevils) and four in the Senate. The frequency with which the tropes recur amazes me:
this is so true - anyone with an eye to history can instantly see how ridiculous it is, all this empty posturing and bloviating.
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:49 (fifteen years ago)
America, I'm putting you on notice: Elect a loony to the whitehouse in '12 and I'm going home and taking my ball with me.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:50 (fifteen years ago)
Just sayin': step away from blogs and cable news, and the head clears.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:53 (fifteen years ago)
we've endured this before
indeed.
the country's divided on key issues and cultural associations about 50/50. just draw a line down the center of the nation. we'll take the right side; they can have the left side.
not a good alignment of politics and geography, but i prefer the east coast. problem solved.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:57 (fifteen years ago)
I thought you were on the left.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:59 (fifteen years ago)
I am a-okay with California seceding from the rest of your losers but y'know there was a war over that already
― klacktoveedesteen (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:59 (fifteen years ago)
Nobody's divided 50/50 – people are complicated, politicians are not.
everything and everyone is complicated
― 51 tyson (crüt), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:00 (fifteen years ago)
yes, i'm on the left, politically. i'd work fine if we could tear california off the left side and move it to the right side.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:01 (fifteen years ago)
this is the kind of thing that people fight wars over iirc.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:02 (fifteen years ago)
guys, red states aren't alien wastelands where people vote republican and contribute nothing to society.
― 51 tyson (crüt), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:03 (fifteen years ago)
you don't say?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:04 (fifteen years ago)
(i know they're not.)
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)
i do sometimes feel as though we have two countries stuffed into one. this is why it's good (for me, at least) to hang-out with conservative friends and colleagues, and remind oneself that there's stronger bonds between people than can be broken by political affiliation.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:07 (fifteen years ago)
The content of this election (as opposed to the empty bloviating and posturing we get instantly) will be packaged as a set of Republican initiatives to "start over" on HCR and to repeal the most effective and useful parts of financial reform. IOW, Obama will veto whatever the House can squeak past the Senate, and Boehner will have his fingers crossed that a Republican retakes the presidency in 2012. Ergo, the functional equivalent of the current posturing and bloviating, masquerading as policy.
The biggest winners? The corporations, of course, whose welfare will now become the sole point of agreement in all three branches of goverment.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:08 (fifteen years ago)
Sometimes I think that the Republicans have figured out how to make a profit for their donors while in power while the Democrats have figured out how to make a profit for their supporters while playing the underdog.
Which has more fervent fans, the Yankees or the Cubs?
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:22 (fifteen years ago)
breadcrumbsfromthetable.com
liberals play Krazy Kat to the Democratic Party's Ignatz.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)
OTM, but please don't ruin Krazy Kat for me.
― Son of Sisyphus of Reaganing (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, spoiler alert!
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)
very disappointed.
Sorry, we couldn't find http://breadcrumbsfromthetable.com/. Here are some related websites: Web Search Results powered by Bread Crumbs Recipe - Chapelure Recipe - The Veggie Table ...Bread crumbs, or chapelure, as they're called in French, are available at the store, but there's really no need to buy them when you can quickly, easily, ...http://www.theveggietable.com/recipes/breadcrumbs.html - 12k - CachedRecipe: Pasta with Anchovies, Parsley, and Breadcrumbs :: Giovanna ...I try to keep a steady supply of breadcrumbs in the freezer by turning surplus ... Pass the breadcrumbs at the table, letting everyone sprinkle on as much ...http://www.culinate.com/recipes/collections/Contributors/giovanna_zivny/pasta_with_anchovies_parsley_and_breadcrumbs - 50k - CachedCustom Breadcrumbs 2.x | drupal.org11 Feb 2009 ... multilingual support built into custom breadcrumbs 2.0 using the patch in #173173: Multilingual support; Use a common table structure and ...http://drupal.org/node/372648 - 32k - CachedCategory-Table Link in Breadcrumbs, Should be Category-Blog LinkIn my websites breadcrumbs, I have one category that is sometimes getting linked to as a Category-Table link and sometimes it gets linked to ...http://dev.anything-digital.com/Forum/sh404SEF/8487-Category-Table-Link-in-Breadcrumbs-Should-be-Category-Blog-Link/ - 32k - Cacheddiorama tableBreadcrumbs: When participants drop off breadcrumbs on the table, a dog appears and runs to the breadcrumbs and bites them. ...http://www.th.jec.ac.jp/~keiko/diorama/paper/dioramaTable_mm1077.pdf - - CachedMX Breadcrumbs User ManualIn order to use MX Breadcrumbs, your database should have a table with the .... The breadcrumb element is in fact a record from the table selected above. ...http://www.interaktonline.com/files/docs/MX%20Breadcrumbs/MX%20Breadcrumbs%20User%20Manual.pdf - - CachedRestricting Filters and Breadcrumbs - SNCWikiThe record list view allows users to easily navigate to different subsets of a table using breadcrumbs and filters. Administrators, however, may wish to ...http://wiki.service-now.com/index.php?title=Restricting_Filters_and_Breadcrumbs - 31k - Cached
Recipe: Pasta with Anchovies, Parsley, and Breadcrumbs :: Giovanna ...I try to keep a steady supply of breadcrumbs in the freezer by turning surplus ... Pass the breadcrumbs at the table, letting everyone sprinkle on as much ...http://www.culinate.com/recipes/collections/Contributors/giovanna_zivny/pasta_with_anchovies_parsley_and_breadcrumbs - 50k - Cached
Custom Breadcrumbs 2.x | drupal.org11 Feb 2009 ... multilingual support built into custom breadcrumbs 2.0 using the patch in #173173: Multilingual support; Use a common table structure and ...http://drupal.org/node/372648 - 32k - Cached
Category-Table Link in Breadcrumbs, Should be Category-Blog LinkIn my websites breadcrumbs, I have one category that is sometimes getting linked to as a Category-Table link and sometimes it gets linked to ...http://dev.anything-digital.com/Forum/sh404SEF/8487-Category-Table-Link-in-Breadcrumbs-Should-be-Category-Blog-Link/ - 32k - Cached
diorama tableBreadcrumbs: When participants drop off breadcrumbs on the table, a dog appears and runs to the breadcrumbs and bites them. ...http://www.th.jec.ac.jp/~keiko/diorama/paper/dioramaTable_mm1077.pdf - - Cached
MX Breadcrumbs User ManualIn order to use MX Breadcrumbs, your database should have a table with the .... The breadcrumb element is in fact a record from the table selected above. ...http://www.interaktonline.com/files/docs/MX%20Breadcrumbs/MX%20Breadcrumbs%20User%20Manual.pdf - - Cached
Restricting Filters and Breadcrumbs - SNCWikiThe record list view allows users to easily navigate to different subsets of a table using breadcrumbs and filters. Administrators, however, may wish to ...http://wiki.service-now.com/index.php?title=Restricting_Filters_and_Breadcrumbs - 31k - Cached
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
Definitely needed to see all those search results.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
if you look at how federal budget dollars are allocated some of them kinda are
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:30 (fifteen years ago)
why couldn't Oklahoma have stayed Indian Territory
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 3:27 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
For the love of god, do NOT tell me what he does with the brick.
― Son of Sisyphus of Reaganing (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:32 (fifteen years ago)
^^^ why people keep right on votin' GOP, exhibit infinity
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
if people are gonna be willfully stupid idiots voting against their own self-interest, yeah I'm gonna get elitist about it
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
"willful" requires unpacking, tho
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:39 (fifteen years ago)
generally incurious in regards to actual facts
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:39 (fifteen years ago)
which is... everybody
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
Procedurally speaking, can HCR be gutted or rebooted years before most of its provisions even kick in?
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
mmm circle jerk
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
"I'm sick of Obama raising my taxes!""But you're taxes have actually gone down since he's been President.""Don't lie to me you liberal elitist!"
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
You see people being stubborn, I see people being used.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:41 (fifteen years ago)
Also, dead people. I see them as well.
I know it has to do with state size, but I love that Alvin Greene got 200,000 more votes than Christine O'Donnell last night.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:42 (fifteen years ago)
One of the few instances where there is equivalency between right and left is how many members of congress appear to be total idiots. So I would not underestimate how much of their own bullshit they believe,
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
Flag burning gay, black muslim elitists!
"Yikes!"
Btw, 2+2 = 5
"O.K."
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
I'm pretty sure if you averaged the IQs of all members of Congress you'd get a number between 105 and 110.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
Damn, when Aimless, one of our most considered and thoughtful posters, starts sounding like Dr Morbius I hold my blankie a little bit closer
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:45 (fifteen years ago)
Hey! That puts them above average (100), but only a bit.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:46 (fifteen years ago)
But I take your point. I shall retreat for a time and nurse my grudges quietly.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:48 (fifteen years ago)
100 is average? I had no idea. Aimless I love your posts and your grudges, nurse them at whatever volume you desire.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:50 (fifteen years ago)
It doesn't take any more raw, measurable intelligence to get into Congress than it does to get obscenely rich.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:52 (fifteen years ago)
I'd go with "Vote Republican: You're going to end up in the soup line anyway, so at least let us make sure there are no Mexicans standing in it next to you, taking your portion of the soup."
― Miss Garrote (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:56 (fifteen years ago)
"...and looking all Mexican. You know how they are."
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:57 (fifteen years ago)
yknow the 'whatsa matter with kansas' conversation always gets shut down as patronizing, elitist etc., and maybe it is and maybe its the wrong question etc. ok but i wish the people who feel this way would tell us what the conversation should look like or whatever. cause people voting stupidly is def. a problem i have identified.
― bounding (tremendoid), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:59 (fifteen years ago)
some of them look like Asians! so sneaky
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:00 (fifteen years ago)
haha
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:04 (fifteen years ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_%28nominal%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
i've seen these stats on tax outlays to poor states (some red) and it just doesn't mean much to me. so what if they elect republicans? redistribution is good, regardless the hypocrisy.
the idea that red america is anything like "the third world" is just bunk, it's not the 1930s anymore. not in the real third world either! the poorest states in the US would still be well within the OECD if they were their own countries.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:06 (fifteen years ago)
besides, as your conservative wonks will like to remind you, the state income tax deduction on your federal returns is a huge giveaway to people living in higher-tax rich states. don't say the gov't never gave you anything...
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
nah I have a problem with hypocrisy, especially when it entails the hypocrites taking my money and being ingrates about it.
so rude!
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
Daniel and Alfred, at least it looks like 5 & 6 will have passed by night's end. Small victories.― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:20 AM (18 hours ago)
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:20 AM (18 hours ago)
fyi
Two members of Congress are challenging a new amendment that sets rules for drawing congressional districts in Florida, less than 24 hours after it was approved by voters.U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart filed a lawsuit challenging Amendment 6 Wednesday in federal court in Miami. The lawsuit asks that the amendment be declared invalid and stopped from being enforced.They claim the new standards could threaten Florida's six congressional districts where blacks and Hispanics are either the majority or close to being in the majority, a contention strongly disputed by the amendment's supporters.The amendment requires districts be compact, equal in population and make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart filed a lawsuit challenging Amendment 6 Wednesday in federal court in Miami. The lawsuit asks that the amendment be declared invalid and stopped from being enforced.
They claim the new standards could threaten Florida's six congressional districts where blacks and Hispanics are either the majority or close to being in the majority, a contention strongly disputed by the amendment's supporters.
The amendment requires districts be compact, equal in population and make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
Ugh any redistricting that doesn't take demographic boundaries into account is pretty stupid... like kind of against the whole point of having representative districts, no?
― The Porcupine Captain With A Crew of White Rabbits (Viceroy), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:31 (fifteen years ago)
well at least have this to amuse us:
http://wcco.com/wireapnewsmn/Tea.party.favorite.2.1994663.html
Bachmann To Run For GOP Leadership In The HouseMINNEAPOLIS (AP) ― U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann will run for a Republican leadership position in the House when the next Congress convenes.
Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor says the Minnesota Republican will run for the party conference chair, which will be the No. 4 GOP post when Republicans take over in January.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas also says he's running and others are considering it.
Gor says Bachmann will remain the chair of the House tea party caucus when she returns to Washington for her third term.
He says Bachmann will seek the job because she believes her brand of conservatives need a voice at the table of the Republican establishment.
The conference chair job is being vacated by Indiana Republican Mike Pence, a possible presidential candidate.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:32 (fifteen years ago)
LOL, she can't cast out for higher office soon enough.
― Miss Garrote (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:33 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know the particulars of the Florida law, but in general, I'm not crazy about demographic gerrymandering.
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 20:35 (fifteen years ago)
ugh!!!!!!!
stop digging your grave, Mr. President!
― Howard Jah Laikakyck (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)
I think he insinuated that he'd be willing to raise the income level that gets taxed.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
It's hard to tell what it means, the Democrats just probably gained in 2008 because so many people showed up. It's sad that people don't show up for a mid-term election, I find it a bit disturbing. Then again I can't blame it on my district, we had lines out the door. People do forget though, even I almost forgot, they just don't take mid-terms seriously, we live in an entertainment saturated culture and mid-term elections are boring. Many of the grand conclusions drawn from this year seem meaningless.
― like you really know who trisomie 21 is (u s steel), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
You sound surprised.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:22 (fifteen years ago)
and, although I don't have turnout figures, the usual suspects showed: everyone who wasn't below thirty. Thus, same as it ever was in a midterm election.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:23 (fifteen years ago)
old people ruin everything
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)
About 6.5 million more registered voters voted this year than in 2006, which is encouraging. OTOH, that's still a totally cruddy 42%.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:27 (fifteen years ago)
cruddy is such a great word
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
actual beef heard in clinic today: "govt spends too much. perfect example---why are we paying for all these expresidents healthcare and salaries and all?? I say we start there!"
rmde
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:42 (fifteen years ago)
yes, let's start there
okay, we got back $500K
BUDGET BALANCED
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
i've heard people seriously suggest that we can do a lot by taxing all those rich sports players more
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)
chris hedges on the phantom left (pardon if linked elsewhere):
The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class. It was as innocuous as a Boy Scout jamboree. It ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:45 (fifteen years ago)
dude for real
my attending, a non conservative orthopod (a rare flower indeed) gently laid waste to this. he even said that there's only been 44 of them, nbd. think I was the only person who lold at that-
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
I think we ripped that one apart upthread.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:48 (fifteen years ago)
no, that was on The Daily Show thread.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:49 (fifteen years ago)
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/cheap-finnish-health-care-is-built-on-the-back-of-low-paid-doctors/
maybe we can get ex prezs some offshore finnish healthcare.xpost
― potholes and esso assos (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
for the record: fuck "acknowledging that the pain and suffering" of goddam tea party wingnuts. and fuck the suggestion that this supposed failure is symptomatic of the death of the american "liberal class." how much time do conservatives spend acknowledging the pain and suffering of aggrieved liberals? is anyone out there suggesting that this oversight is killing the "conservative class?" no. fuck this line of thinking - hand-wringing, sorry ass bullshit.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:55 (fifteen years ago)
tbh i agree that the stewart rally was some lightweight bullshit, i can't believe some people considered it to be a big statement event.
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:59 (fifteen years ago)
I will acknowledge their pain and suffering when they acknowkedge how much of it they have brought on themselves by being repatedly suckered by the Republicans.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:00 (fifteen years ago)
the failures of basic civics classes in this country is pervasive and depressing - people ALWAYS think there is unnecessary waste and fraud and costs in gov't, but they never bother to actually find any. Whenever anyone goes in expecting to find this massive waste, IT IS NOT THERE (cf. Schwarzenegger recently admitting that he did not find the level of waste and redundancy in the CA state budget he was expecting, among many other examples). This is partly because people invariably have unpleasant experiences whenever they have to deal with such a large institution as the government, but also because people really have no idea what is done with their tax dollars. It literally does not occur to people that their dollars pay for parks, for roads, for bridges, for schools, for healthcare, for the military, for social security, and for a whole range of services that they benefit from every day. Whenever anyone starts in about how much waste there is in a gov't budget and how gov't needs to be smaller I just ask them "what gov't service/benefit that you PERSONALLY take advantage of would you be willing to cut?" No one ever has an answer. (I picked this tactic up from my dad - who was, you guessed it, a public school civics teacher lol)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
yeah after awhile if you keep repeatedly shooting yourself in the face I don't really have much sympathy for you
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:02 (fifteen years ago)
i can't believe some people considered it to be a big statement event.
I don't think a whole lot of people did, outside of the Huffington Post.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
hey don't go talking to kids about how their tax dollars pay for road and infrastructure, you'll get run outta town as a socialist.
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
My mother is adamant that government workers get paid too much and their benefits package is too good. Also she says they are too difficult to fire, and they should be willing to take a pay cut in these difficult times.
She also thinks it's a waste that they spend whatever they get just to ensure that they don't lose that budget the next year.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:07 (fifteen years ago)
i dunno i think a lot of people thought this rally was gonna be some massive, wonderful zing on the right.
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:08 (fifteen years ago)
Olberman wasn't pleased. He's also suspended the "World's Worst" segment because of it.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:08 (fifteen years ago)
gov't employees are actually paid a good deal less than the private sector on average fyi. it's true they are difficult to fire.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:13 (fifteen years ago)
unless their budgets are cut, then entire departments get axed
Is the Tea Party et al. belief that the Fed gov's only purpose is to provide a national defense? And that everything else should be local or something, and micromanaged? Yeah, that would really work. I'd love to see the chaos inspired by each keeper of the budget and spender of the money actually living amongst his or her constituency.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:14 (fifteen years ago)
My own personal bane lately is the argument that taxes inhibit innovation and economic growth, or (especially) that tax cuts naturally drive it. 1) Giving individuals extra money almost always results in their hanging on to it, and in the case of businesses, they can't do much for the economy with their big tax cut if they don't have extra customers to go along with them. 2) I'm fed the fuck up with the implicit argument that the only motivation that anyone could possibly have to do anything at all is, in the words of Eddie Izzard, to get all the money in the world and stick it in their ears and go pbbbbth. Creative, innovative people don't just lie in bed all day past a certain level of taxation.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:18 (fifteen years ago)
^^OTM
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:27 (fifteen years ago)
people ALWAYS think there is unnecessary waste and fraud and costs in gov't, but they never bother to actually find any. Whenever anyone goes in expecting to find this massive waste, IT IS NOT THERE
Yes there is. In any huge institution there is. Al Gore did little else but identify waste in the federal bureaucracy for his first year as VP and he got rid of tons of it. No one ever mentions this though.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
1) Giving individuals extra money almost always results in their hanging on to it
Not for low-income people. They spend it on things that they needed, like, yesterday. For upper-income people and big corporations, yes absolutely
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:31 (fifteen years ago)
True, true. Lower income people pay bills with their tax cuts.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:32 (fifteen years ago)
Or unemployment benefits, which after yesterday they can kiss goodbye, if they were ever forthcoming in the forst place.
― kenan, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:33 (fifteen years ago)
a lot of gov't waste is in outsourcing jobs to private companies. brother-in-law is waiting to move from one gov't agency to another, and it's costing over 60k to do security clearance checks through a private company. this after the same amount was spent to get him clearance first time around just over a year ago. but hell, we can't touch defence.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:34 (fifteen years ago)
if you've ever worked for the government (and i have, in several capacities/departments, local and fed) you quickly realize that there is MASSIVE waste everywhere. but the bureaucracy that creates/absorbs that waste is fantastically well-defended and opaque. it has to be in order to survive the all-but-constant turnover at the top level, turnover that's often driven by the idea that waste will be found and eliminated.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:35 (fifteen years ago)
not to the degree that people think, especially when you consider the gargantuan nature of the federal budget. Like, whatever waste you want to identify is probably a miniscule proportion of the actual budget. There is not enough waste in the federal budget to cut taxes as Republicans would like AND pay for the military AND pay for Medicare AND pay for social security etc. It's just ridiculous to suggest such. I'm trying to find that quote from Schwarzenegger...
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:35 (fifteen years ago)
and if you compare it to the amount of waste in the private sector... hooboy
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:36 (fifteen years ago)
I mean there are companies in the private sector that basically just burn money and then declare bankruptcy and then oops get bailed out by the federal gov't!
otm. educating the masses should involve more pointing out the massive waste in the private sector compared to the public. also horrendously unfair pay. and benefits. and vacation days.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:38 (fifteen years ago)
have the feeling that most gov't bureaucracies could be run for less than half what they currently cost, if it weren't for habit, obsolescence, rigidity, ancient union contracts, intractable gatekeepers, etc. i'm generally pro-union, so i'm not sure what to do with this perception, but it persists, and it's largely based on working in gov't bureaucracies in a money-tracking capacity.
no interest in comparing it to the private sector, but there are very different engines of reward at work there.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:38 (fifteen years ago)
it never fails to amaze me how pervasive the "of course the private company looking for a profit is going to look out for me" mentality really is.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
^^^this. it's mind-boggling
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:40 (fifteen years ago)
and really, really stupid
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
this gets brought up every once in a while, and i think obama leaned on it when passing the '90% of americans' tax cuts, but it never sticks for some reason. i mean you could even finesse it into the bullshit tax narrative kenan talks about in lieu of replacing the narrative in the shorter term. obama wielding the targeted small business relief vs. keeping the bush top earner tax cuts kinda plays on this but i hope he makes it more explicit IF he even takes up that fight in the lame duck session
― bounding (tremendoid), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:43 (fifteen years ago)
Low-income people waste money too.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
They will look out for you...while you're useful to them. You can make a lot more in the private sector and also be laid off in a flash. You don't make as much in the public sector but it's usually harder for them to fire you.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
have the feeling that most gov't bureaucracies could be run for less than half what they currently cost, if it weren't for habit, obsolescence, rigidity, ancient union contracts, intractable gatekeepers, etc.
I dunno I just accept these things as a) coming with the territory (insofar as I honestly don't believe there is really THAT much you can do to make such lumbering, overburdened institutions function smoothly, transparently and efficiently, it's just the nature of the beast when yr talking about institutions whose leadership changes every couple of years and on whose services millions of people depend. Like really how do you expect it to work?) and b) are multiple times better than having these many services handled by the private sector where the profit motive is the overall guiding principle. Gov't institutions are not guided by the profit motive, but they are guided by a similar drive for self-preservation, and this self-preserving behavior is not attractive, even if it is necessary.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
Al Gore did little else but identify waste in the federal bureaucracy for his first year as VP and he got rid of tons of it.
Really? How much, as a percentage of GDP or of the Federal budget? 1%? 5%? 20%?
Not for low-income people. They spend it on things that they needed, like, yesterday
Or they pay off debt. Which is not productive economic activity, in that it has zero effect on demand.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:47 (fifteen years ago)
Anybody who spouts that "private companies do everything better" bullshit should be strapped into a chair Clockwork Orange steez and made to read Consumerist for a week straight.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:48 (fifteen years ago)
Was Feingold predicted to lose?
Pressure is good for Obama.
― youn, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:50 (fifteen years ago)
This is partly because people invariably have unpleasant experiences whenever they have to deal with such a large institution as the government, but also because people really have no idea what is done with their tax dollars
this anti-government sentiment isn't based on anything tangible most of the time. it's a signifier for a set of beliefs held by conservatives. it also is an easy target, since no one likes wasteful spending, and it's easy to rail against it without doing anything about it. the key is to convince your constituents that you're tough and serious about reducing spending, which will make them think you're "one of them," which goes a long way toward securing votes.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:50 (fifteen years ago)
yes
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)
A couple months before the election these dudes proposed that taxpayers receive a "taxpayer receipt" showing exactly what their taxes paid for.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20133f4c12391970b-550wi
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:54 (fifteen years ago)
that's a hell of an idea, actually. it's expensive, tho.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:55 (fifteen years ago)
There's also this:
One of the biggest problems facing the Democrats going into this election is that they're getting absolutely zero respect for everything they've done for the average American over the past two years. Tax cuts, health care reform, financial reform, expanded veterans' benefits, direct funding of student loans -- the list is long, and one that, by rights, should get the Democrats re-elected handily.The problem is that the average voter has no idea that any of this ever happened. In fact, if you ask most Americans (even a lot of Democrats), they'll tell you that Obama raised their taxes . . .Unfortunately, this is just a symptom of a much larger problem, one that progressives need to resolve if we are to prevail in the future. The bizarre fact is that most Americans who've made it into the middle class got there with the help of seriously life-changing government investments and subsidies -- and yet, ironically, if you ask them if they've ever used a government program in their lives, they're very likely to tell you: Nope. Never. I did it all on my own.Suzanne Mettler, a professor at Cornell, actually documented this effect in a 2008 study. She asked people who'd been the beneficiaries of 19 specific government programs -- including some of the most popular and widespread programs in the country -- whether or not they'd ever used a government social program. Here's what she found:
The problem is that the average voter has no idea that any of this ever happened. In fact, if you ask most Americans (even a lot of Democrats), they'll tell you that Obama raised their taxes . . .
Unfortunately, this is just a symptom of a much larger problem, one that progressives need to resolve if we are to prevail in the future. The bizarre fact is that most Americans who've made it into the middle class got there with the help of seriously life-changing government investments and subsidies -- and yet, ironically, if you ask them if they've ever used a government program in their lives, they're very likely to tell you: Nope. Never. I did it all on my own.
Suzanne Mettler, a professor at Cornell, actually documented this effect in a 2008 study. She asked people who'd been the beneficiaries of 19 specific government programs -- including some of the most popular and widespread programs in the country -- whether or not they'd ever used a government social program. Here's what she found:
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Government-program-use.png
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
people are fucking morons exhibit A
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
Low-income people waste money too.which entails spending, or maybe i don't understand
Or they pay off debt. Which is not productive economic activity, in that it has zero effect on demand
i think i'm groping towards a more utopian or at least longer term scenario than the phrase 'productive economic activity' allows for. low income folks getting out of debt is kinda cool you have to admit
― bounding (tremendoid), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:00 (fifteen years ago)
ever fly a plane or drive a highway? thank your taxes
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:00 (fifteen years ago)
The bizarre fact is that most Americans who've made it into the middle class got there with the help of seriously life-changing government investments and subsidies -- and yet, ironically, if you ask them if they've ever used a government program in their lives, they're very likely to tell you: Nope. Never. I did it all on my own.
it's a guess, but i'll bet a lot of these respondents aren't making their statement in a vaccum, but instead, what they're really saying is "maybe i had a little help here-and-there, but not compared to the people who spend their lives living off the system, gaming the system." there's also a lot of racism and related -isms at work here. in a way, it's the same when people complain about "entitlement programs," but express love for, say, social security. in their mind's eye, when they think of "entitlement programs," they see minorities and illegal immigrants. when they think of social security, they see their mother, who worked all her life, and is now entitled to a decent retirement.
anyway, a lot of assumptions from my gut, i realize. otoh, you have more nerve endings in your gut than in your head.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)
I have a feeling one reason people ignore all the recent accomplishments of the Dems is that they simply presumed those no-brainer sorts of safety nets and corrections existed in the first place. Like the guy quoted in some other thread that didn't even realize he got a tax cut and refund the year before. It's a lot easier to generally complain about government than to itemize all the dozens of ways it positively impacts us on a daily basis, paid for it ways which often boils down to factions of cents spread across many months, invisible on their own but significant multiplied times 300 million.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:19 (fifteen years ago)
i also don't think it's that people ignore it. it's just that the economy is still very bad -- end of story for the incumbent party.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:21 (fifteen years ago)
that skirts the basic responsibility of, like, thinking about what will make things better or worse. which millions of people skirt every day and they are among us and we love them etc. but someone other than 'politicians' needs to get called out on something at some point imo.
― bounding (tremendoid), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:26 (fifteen years ago)
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:48 PM (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
also it's usually "private companies do everything better...except those shitheads I work for!"
― skreet walking cheeduh widda head fulla facepalm (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:28 (fifteen years ago)
the truth is generally way more complicated than saying "government is the problem"
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)
Folks just need a basic primer on all the rights we've steadily gained, thanks to the government. It's not like it ends with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, though clearly many people think it should. Such ignorance is just the obvious luxury byproduct of relative wealth, security and comfort - complacency.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:32 (fifteen years ago)
at one point the other day I was thinking that one of the crucial differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives tend to gravitate toward the simple answer/certainty whereas liberals tend to gravitate more complex explanations entailing considerable uncertainty.
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:33 (fifteen years ago)
That's mostly the dif. between dumb people and smart people of both parties.
x-post to myself Granted, govt reluctantly accorded many of those rights at the behest of the people, but still - if we still had unchecked corporations, etc., we'd be as bad off as some of the Tea Party people think we are now. Methinks they need some perspective.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:34 (fifteen years ago)
Harry Reid says that if HRC needs tweaking, he's all right with that.
"Harry Reid: Ready to Tweak!" seems just perfect as a slogan.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
I mean, yeah, of course that's true to an extent - there are certainly leftists who oversimplify things, and conservatives who can go on at length about economic issues. But really, it's so easy to sum up the default conservative solution to incredibly complicated issues - "lower taxes, free markets, no handouts to poor people, less government". What are the analogous liberal two word slogans?
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
Though actually, wasn't there just a study that showed hardcore conservatives were more difficult to sway with facts than hardcore liberals, and that being presented with facts causes the former to dig in even deeper? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:40 (fifteen years ago)
"in order to reduce the deficit we're going to have to either increase taxes or cut spending, or both, and cutting spending is difficult because so much taxpayer money goes to entitlement programs that are very popular and provide an essential safety net" vs. "lower taxes, cut spending"
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:42 (fifteen years ago)
hardcore conservatives have been presented with so many actual facts in recent years that they've turned into jabbering tea partiers in other words
― omar little, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
"we can't give everyone in America a free car because, in addition to having close to the amount of money to purchase the car, there would be practical problems related to providing enough parking, disposing of the old cars, not to mention the increase in GHG emissions, sprawl, traffic congestion..." vs "EVERYONE GETS A FREE CAR!"
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:45 (fifteen years ago)
in addition to NOT having close to the amount of money NEEDED to purchase the carS
sigh. I can't even impersonate a nerdy liberal trying to explain the complicated practicalities for a ridiculous idea, what do I know
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:46 (fifteen years ago)
a lot of people who vote democratic arent exactly well-informed themselves
― max, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:49 (fifteen years ago)
right, but to get back to the stupid point I was trying to make, what are the simplified two-word slogans that ignorant democrats use as proposed solutions to complicated issues? I'm sure there are some and they're just not coming to mind, but it seems like a lot of the appeal of being a conservative is that it makes life easier because you don't have to put much thought into how complicated things really are.
― Z S, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
not to open a can of worms but "pro choice"
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
"don't ask, don't tell" (old-school democrats style)
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:55 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i took no solace from all the 'i think we just need some change' i saw bandied about in 08. 'party of no' has a sell by date but not bad, not bad
― bounding (tremendoid), Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:07 (fifteen years ago)
"No War" "End Torture" "Public Health Care"
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:10 (fifteen years ago)
xpost ok, "pro-choice" is a two-word slogan, but I feel like (and I'm hating on conservatives today so I'm probably being a bit unreasonable tbh) both pro-choice and DADT are quick slogans to summarize a pretty complex stance. Whereas "less government" (or "cut taxes") is essentially the guts of the argument.
it's just a gut feeling that things always tend to be waaaaaay oversimplified on the conservative side. but, yeah, I know, it's not a winning argument. Which brings me to ANOTHER gross generalization about liberals and conservatives - I feel like I'm always willing to admit that I'm wrong, and even actively SEARCHING for ways that I'm wrong, whereas extremoconservatives are seemingly incapable of admitting that they're wrong (will any birther or person spouting nonsense about Obama's imminent concentration camps for American freedomlovers ever admit that they were a bit off?)
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:10 (fifteen years ago)
"take america back. raise taxes on the rich. the rich were taxed 70% - 90% from the 1940s - 1970s. greatest generation. no deficit." repeat a billion times, like the conservatives mantra-ed "government=evil" in the 1970s till raygun got elected
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:11 (fifteen years ago)
eh, just ignore the lunatic in the corner. tbh I'm just totally freaked out by America right now. I mean, wtf is going on
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:12 (fifteen years ago)
they won't admit they're wrong. and they're influential because of that. dems need to understand that and deal, even co-opt them, instead of waste away in denial
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:20 (fifteen years ago)
repeat a billion times
***
cornerstone of the long game, period. that the left considers this gauche or patronizing or what have you is maybe what makes them the left, but it also explains why they always find themselves in 'messaging' limbo
― bounding (tremendoid), Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:21 (fifteen years ago)
agreed. if they had an answer for rush limbaugh (and it ain't ed schultz) they wouldn't have gotten their butts kicked most elections since the early 90s. highbrow conservatives and their think tanks court and train populists to relate to the peasantry. the left should do the same and stop floating above the fray. nuanced intellectual arguments don't fly in talk radio land. air america (RIP) tried, but shows i heard sounded like sarcastic stand up comics. get some true believers on air to appeal to joe trucker and sales reps driving from like des moines to sioux city and give them time to develop followings
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:29 (fifteen years ago)
take america back. raise taxes on the rich. the rich were taxed 70% - 90% from the 1940s - 1970s. greatest generation. no deficit
The secret behind this is that no one actually paid an effective 90% income tax rate because of the loopholes. It used to be gambling losses could be deducted from your income. See also credit card interest and a million other things.
Every single time, up until Bush II, that taxes were cut loopholes were also eliminated from the tax code. This is individuals only. Tax loopholes remain for corporations obv.
What I'm saying is this- tax cuts under Kennedy and Reagan (which are touted by the Laffer crowd as raising revenue) were offset with loophole closures and outright tax increases in other places so that, now, Joe the Plumber pays the same in taxes (percentage wise) as his much wealthier citizens.
What matters in the tax code is the effective tax rate which, when I worked in the biz, was around between 16 and 22 percent (for people making over 120k in Ohio). We have a flat tax rate right now and it's getting more regressive all the time.
Get drunk now!
― browns zero loss (brownie), Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)
Needless to say, it's been Punditpalooza all night on CNN. My favorite line so far is from wheezebag Dick Armey, who said Obama is only "passively disinterested" in the details of creating legislation. Passive Disinterest, the greatest slacker band that never was.
― clemenza, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)
the right, for all their rep as monstrous bullies, doesn't quite go after the citizens who vote left as much as the dems go after the citizens who vote right imo. the repubs are more concerned with going after the politicians and the pundits so much that they've turned their very names into epithets (reid, pelosi, obama, and others.) maybe it's not really the case, but it often seems that way for whatever reason.
― omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:52 (fifteen years ago)
aye oh let's go
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:53 (fifteen years ago)
nothing beats listening to the wealthy complain about paying 6 dollars more in taxes than last year (seriously, it happened) when you're wondering if social security is going to be around and you're going to need it
― browns zero loss (brownie), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
i might sound like a prick, but i really think most people are bigoted, ignorant (or straight up stupid) and greedy. the actual "substance", as it were, of conservative dog-whistle messaging is always going to play better. i'd love to be proven wrong.
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
Depressing on so many different levels
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices were removed from their positions by voters, the first time that any member of Iowa's high court has been removed since they first allowed people to vote on it in the 1960s. All three juuuust happened to be part of the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
DES MOINES — An unprecedented vote to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state was celebrated by conservatives as a popular rebuke of judicial overreach, even as it alarmed proponents of an independent judiciary.The outcome of the election was heralded both as a statewide repudiation of same-sex marriage and as a national demonstration that conservatives who have long complained about “legislators in robes” are able to effectively target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions.Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.
The outcome of the election was heralded both as a statewide repudiation of same-sex marriage and as a national demonstration that conservatives who have long complained about “legislators in robes” are able to effectively target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions.
Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.
manpukinghisgutsout.jpg
Do the leaders of the recall campaign understand how the Judicial Branch is supposed to function? I was pretty sure that they weren't supposed to make judicial decisions based on their chances of getting voted out by bigots?
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
voting for judges is about as dumb an idea as the senate is
― max, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:11 (fifteen years ago)
the left could blow a whistle of their own. the right would call it class warfare, but fuck them. hell, the bigoted, ignorant, and greedy might appreciate being paid some attention to. problem is, the left won't do it
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:11 (fifteen years ago)
the left could blow a whistle of their own
"legalize pot" referrendums are the current talk.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:12 (fifteen years ago)
bring out the young vote.
probably will have the opposite impact, i fear.
listening to the wealthy complain about paying 6 dollars more in taxes than last year (seriously, it happened)
"Content makes poor men rich; discontent makes rich men poor." - Ben Franklin
Also, you don't get rich by not paying attention to your money.
That's a social issue, and almost entirely outside of the scope of an economic discussion. (Unless it's a freakonomic discussion.) Z.S. otm that liberal slogans usually have a layer or two underneath them, even if those layers are made up of faulty assumptions, and conservative slogans tend to be more WYSIWYG.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:14 (fifteen years ago)
why?
― Mordy, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:23 (fifteen years ago)
it may draw out social conservatives.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
(to vote against the measure lol)
hard to imagine social conservatives caring more about keeping marijuana illegal than about stopping gay marriage or making abortion illegal and whatever crazy shit carrot-legislation brings them out in any given year
― Mordy, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:28 (fifteen years ago)
true. but remember it was the GOP that put gay-marriage amendments on state ballots in 2004, to draw out the conservative vote. i just think they may come out against pot-smoking hippies, too (not in as many numbers, tho).
but hey, i'm up for a florida referendum to legalize pot. you never know. i've never smoked. maybe i'll try it!
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:31 (fifteen years ago)
you should, it makes music sound awesome!
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:32 (fifteen years ago)
that is basically my pitch
i'll bet that's even more true with vinyl! i just got a record player.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
+ fun delicious. + ilx fun.
― Mordy, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
+ food delicious. but actually fun delicious works too
"legalize pot" referendums are the current talk.
but shit, if Cali can't get that through what hope is there for the rest of us in fly-over fucktard land?
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:34 (fifteen years ago)
Marijuana is a non-starter as a divisive voter issue, imo. Even in the deepest darkest depths of my East Texas family, I'd have a hard time finding someone who truly thinks it's a societal danger. Half of them grow it, and the rest are too drunk to vote.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:34 (fifteen years ago)
all I know is that I plan on voting out any hippy judge, and THAT IS A WARNING TO ALL JUDGES ACROSS THE LAND
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:35 (fifteen years ago)
xp People will vote against a referendum, sure, but don't look for anti-pot rallies breaking out anywhere.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:35 (fifteen years ago)
one's breaking out in front of my house right now.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:36 (fifteen years ago)
So far this evening all I have heard on radio/tv is Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner And not one word about tanning or oompaloompas. Bah humbug.
Heard interview on NPR this morning with a Prop 19 supporter hanging out at Uni of Oaksterdam (ugh) to commiserate prop's defeat. Wherein she revealed that she did not vote bc she had to take care of her dog.
u_u
Not that I care so much abt Prop 19 but OH CMON
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:38 (fifteen years ago)
Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner oompaloompas Boehner Boehner Boehner Boehner tanning Boehner Boehner
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:39 (fifteen years ago)
Jerry Brown = good news, right?
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:40 (fifteen years ago)
he will be touring california's legal dispensaries for the next three months.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:41 (fifteen years ago)
to my great surprise, given that I used to be pretty apathetic about the issue, I get pretty lit up about marijuana laws. it's like...come the fuck on. in the next room right now is enough alcohol to kill me & all the neighbors if we drank it all real fast. as far as I know it would be impossible to kill myself with weed. unless like I shaped some buds into a knife and drove it through my heart. that would be gnarly tho I gotta admit
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:41 (fifteen years ago)
wait what was I talking about
"lit up"
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
Jerry has a nice chill vibe that I like but who knows. State is a smoking crater, really needs a tarpaulin & some rocks to hold it down.
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
as far as I know it would be impossible to kill myself with weed
bad for your lungs tho. only saving grace is that, as i understand it, you don't chain-smoke joints like people chain-smoke cigs.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
I wonder if the proposition would have passed if there wasn't so much fearmongering about marijuana getting corporatized and driving out the mom and pop pseudo-pharmacies out of business? I heard that talking point from 3 different people in discussing the proposition - "yeah, but if it passes then it's just going to be sold in Wal-Mart and the boutique shops will be driven out of the market". I even heard a similar argument on NPR, iirc, and it seems ridiculous. 1) Wal-Mart's never going to sell weed. They can't even put a penis on Nevermind. 2) Even if a huge company sold it and drove everyone else out of business, I think the benefits, especially not prosecuting thousands of people each year because they like to eat doritos and laugh a bunch and enhance their music listening experiences, outweigh the costs. 3) How in the world would the fact that a huge company was selling weed prevent people from buying boutique bud elsewhere? The proposition would have made it legal for dudes to grow it in their houses, up to a certain amount. There are 10,000s of people growing crazy varieties of weed in their basements right now, when it's still illegal. That's going to change?
Sorry, maybe attacking a strawman there but it was weird to hear the same argument from 3 different people in the last two weeks, and I hope it didn't convince anyone to vote against the prop that otherwise would have.
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
i read shape buds into a knife and drove it through my heart and started to think about that as a metaphor for smoking enough weed it's as tho u shaped buds into an IV and inserted the weed-IV-tube intravenously
― Mordy, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
bad for your lungs tho
vaporizers have solved this problem forever
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
at the risk of sounding defeatist, it seems to me that the strongest sound bite-y argument the left has (had?) is raging against megacorp influence in DC... and the last umpteen years has only convinced me that those punches just don't land with 'real Amurcans' :-/
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)
you can chain-smoke joints, the only drawback is that it's really expensive and you can get way too funny to the point where people shit their pants
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
My thing is state laws for weed don't mean jack until Fed falls in line, or chills out or w/e. Not that there's no point in the states trying to strike out on their own, but it's ughhhh honestly the whole state/federal thing does my head in
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
I heard that talking point from 3 different people in discussing the proposition
But in a sign of what a tough sell it was, the measure lost in the state's vaunted marijuana-growing region known as the "Emerald Triangle" of Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties. Many in the region feared the system they created would be taken over by corporations or would undercut a cornerstone of the local economies by sending pot prices plunging.
― bounding (tremendoid), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
fearmongering about marijuana getting corporatized and driving out the mom and pop pseudo-pharmacies out of business
Where were these fearmongerers when we started subsidizing our food production?
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:48 (fifteen years ago)
oh.
god DAMMIT
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:49 (fifteen years ago)
There are 10,000s of people growing crazy varieties of weed in their basements right now, when it's still illegal.
The Botany of Desire makes the compelling argument that criminalization was the best thing that ever happened to marijuana, from the plant's POV. It's a hugely, madly better and stronger and more intoxicating plant that it could have even dreamed of being 80 years ago.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:53 (fifteen years ago)
tbh I think that addressing the issue of the 100,000s of people who are wrongfully imprisoned because a bunch of Harry Anslinger-ites don't know anything about marijuana is worth the drawback of corporate weed.
― Z S, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:54 (fifteen years ago)
sometimes you'll hear old hippies claiming that like 70s Panama or Columbia Gold was better than anything you can get today and it's like...no...dude...you're wrong
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:56 (fifteen years ago)
xp Well, there's illegal, and then there's the American judicial system and its attendant prison-industrial complex.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:57 (fifteen years ago)
the strongest sound bite-y argument the left has (had?) is raging against megacorp influence in DC... and the last umpteen years has only convinced me that those punches just don't land with 'real Amurcans'or could be the dems pull their punches because they're in megacorp's back pocket too
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:03 (fifteen years ago)
No, that's not possible. Never.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:04 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, not a chance, i know
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:05 (fifteen years ago)
Dude, you're paranoid. You need to stop smoking that schwag.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:07 (fifteen years ago)
shhhhh . . . i'm watching barbarella
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:07 (fifteen years ago)
Try some of this hydro that my friend brought back from Canada.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:08 (fifteen years ago)
we need to go to war with canada.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:08 (fifteen years ago)
priority no. 1 for new GOP house majority imo.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:09 (fifteen years ago)
keep your enemies closer. ergo...
― bounding (tremendoid), Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:11 (fifteen years ago)
Endless loop on CNN tonight, six straight hours of it: Does the President "get the message" of yesterday? He doesn't get the message, unless he mostly gets the message, but maybe he only kind of gets the message, except if he completely gets the message. That pause at the 12-minute mark of today's press conference: that was a dead giveaway that he gets 73% of the message.
You don't want to go to war with us. We have all the hockey players.
― clemenza, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:12 (fifteen years ago)
this made me laugh.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:13 (fifteen years ago)
are you familiar with our many violent criminals?
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:14 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah cmon, think of the hockey fans
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:14 (fifteen years ago)
they'll learn to love american football.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:15 (fifteen years ago)
If hockey players don't scare you off, we also have Justin Bieber.
― clemenza, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:15 (fifteen years ago)
okay okay.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:16 (fifteen years ago)
we have no interest in conquering canada.
please keep your justin bieber.
I can't imagine Justin Beiber is much of a match for a recent-model M16.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
You see, in America, we shoot you. It seems a little drastic, I know. It's just our way.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:19 (fifteen years ago)
bringing together two key themes of tonight's thread
http://today24news.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Justin-Bieber.jpg
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:20 (fifteen years ago)
Also there's that whole poutine thing. And the hot chick with Freddie Mercury teeth from Mad Men
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:20 (fifteen years ago)
hot chick with Freddie Mercury teeth
does. not. compute.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
Freddie Mercury teeth
Classic.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:22 (fifteen years ago)
I can't remember her name...but boy do I remember those chompers
― That is the stench of tyranny (VegemiteGrrrl), Thursday, 4 November 2010 02:40 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/world/04britain.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Under pressure from American and British officials, YouTube on Wednesday removed from its site some of the hundreds of videos featuring calls to jihad by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born, Yemen-based cleric who has played an increasingly public role in inspiring violence directed at the West.
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 03:29 (fifteen years ago)
So, how scared do you think Senate Republicans are going to be that they need to fall in line?
Potential Tea Party Targets
As you are settling down from yesterday’s victories, you will want to also pay attention to this list. While many will be focusing on a potential Presidential pick for the GOP, we should not all get distracted by that.We have a significant opportunity to improve the Senate GOP through some primaries. Here is a list of potential targets for primaries — these are all of the Senate Republicans up for re-election in 2012:John Barasso (WY)Scott Brown (MA)Bob Corker (TN)John Ensign (NV)Orrin Hatch (UT)Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)Jon Kyl (AZ)Richard Lugar (IN)Olympia Snowe (ME)Roger Wicker (MS)Note that this is just the list of Senate Republicans running. Not all will be targets, but it will be from these men and women that the tea party movement starts looking for targets.Now, before you all get giddy about Olympia Snowe, I would respectfully suggest that Corker, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, and Wicker make better targets as we have a much greater certainty of both beating them in primaries and also winning the general election.Wicker and Corker in particular make exciting prospects for the tea party movement.
We have a significant opportunity to improve the Senate GOP through some primaries. Here is a list of potential targets for primaries — these are all of the Senate Republicans up for re-election in 2012:
John Barasso (WY)Scott Brown (MA)Bob Corker (TN)John Ensign (NV)Orrin Hatch (UT)Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)Jon Kyl (AZ)Richard Lugar (IN)Olympia Snowe (ME)Roger Wicker (MS)
Note that this is just the list of Senate Republicans running. Not all will be targets, but it will be from these men and women that the tea party movement starts looking for targets.
Now, before you all get giddy about Olympia Snowe, I would respectfully suggest that Corker, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, and Wicker make better targets as we have a much greater certainty of both beating them in primaries and also winning the general election.
Wicker and Corker in particular make exciting prospects for the tea party movement.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Thursday, 4 November 2010 03:49 (fifteen years ago)
president scott brown!??
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
say it aint so
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:01 (fifteen years ago)
lol @ kyl being on there and not mccain. like, ah, fuck it, he's gonna die...
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:04 (fifteen years ago)
this is a list for tea party targets to run against in the primaries. mccain isn't up for re-election in 2012.
― Dork City (Gukbe), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:15 (fifteen years ago)
I think the Tea Party is ideologically incoherent, but damnit if that isn't a fine list of people that need to go.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:21 (fifteen years ago)
it's not really that hard to come up with a list of republicans
― iatee, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:22 (fifteen years ago)
Like I say, few common goals, but many common enemies. There's something there.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:25 (fifteen years ago)
enemy is relative, people on that list are the people we're going to have to compromise w/ to do absolutely anything
― iatee, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:29 (fifteen years ago)
Somewhere, somehow there's a way to convince even social conservatives that Orrin Hatch and KayBay are no good for no-frickin'-body. I guess that's the whole trick, innit?
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:32 (fifteen years ago)
I mean, if people are naive enough that they can be convinced in vast numbers to vote against -- often WAY against -- their own economic interests, there must be a way to trick them into voting FOR their own interests.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:38 (fifteen years ago)
the trick is to make it seem irredeemably stupid to do so
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:43 (fifteen years ago)
Now you're on the trolley!
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:44 (fifteen years ago)
Ben Nelson is up in 2012 too. Giddy up, Tea Huskers!
― http://tinyurl.com/koalalala (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:47 (fifteen years ago)
kamerad has been OTM throughout
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:09 (fifteen years ago)
AMY KREMER (Chairwoman of the Tea Party Express) (10/31/10): The thing is, we need to stop this out-of-control spending and intrusion into our lives.LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Tell me one government program you would stop. We agree, I agree with you—all that government spending is too high. Now tell me the program, Amy, you tell me the program you would stop.KREMER: That’s exactly, that’s exactly, this is— The thing is, I am not—O’DONNELL: Name me the program, Amy.KREMER: Are you going to let me answer the question?O’DONNELL: If you name a program. If you don’t, I have to move on to someone else.KREMER: I am not an expert on the U.S. budget. I am not an expert on the U.S. budget, but we cannot spend more than we make. We need to leave everything on the table.O’DONNELL: OK. Amy, we’re going to leave it right—Amy, the way, we’re going to leave it with you, and you can reconsider, going to be on for the rest of the show, you can think it over for the rest of the show about any government program you want to stop. But as of now, I’ve got you down as not opposed to a single government program.
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Tell me one government program you would stop. We agree, I agree with you—all that government spending is too high. Now tell me the program, Amy, you tell me the program you would stop.
KREMER: That’s exactly, that’s exactly, this is— The thing is, I am not—
O’DONNELL: Name me the program, Amy.
KREMER: Are you going to let me answer the question?
O’DONNELL: If you name a program. If you don’t, I have to move on to someone else.
KREMER: I am not an expert on the U.S. budget. I am not an expert on the U.S. budget, but we cannot spend more than we make. We need to leave everything on the table.
O’DONNELL: OK. Amy, we’re going to leave it right—Amy, the way, we’re going to leave it with you, and you can reconsider, going to be on for the rest of the show, you can think it over for the rest of the show about any government program you want to stop. But as of now, I’ve got you down as not opposed to a single government program.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:10 (fifteen years ago)
Special Deputy Agent Anderson Cooper had more or less exactly the same interview with Michelle Bachman-Turner Overdrive last night. He was trying to get her to be specific about where she was going to make all these budget cuts, and she was rambling on about Obama's profligate overseas jaunt to India.
― clemenza, Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:28 (fifteen years ago)
xp That doesn't prove that she doesn't know what she wants to cut or that she doesn't know what she's talking about, only that the logical economic conclusion of the kind of extreme libertarian economics that the Tea Party seems to be behind can't be stated up front. I suspect both things may be true, but I'll give the benefit of a doubt and ask: Even if she knows full well what those economic policies mean, what is she supposed to say to that question? "Teachers, Larry. The first thing I'd do is get rid of all public school teachers." That kind of shit closes out of town.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:34 (fifteen years ago)
As well it bleeding should.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:36 (fifteen years ago)
But isn't that the point? That Republicans and Tea Party people (we must, of course, keep them completely separate) talk endlessly about this stuff, knowing full well they would never follow through on any actual serious cuts because it would be political suicide. And not only would they never follow through on the doing, they're even afraid to venture into the saying.
― clemenza, Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:42 (fifteen years ago)
Actually, I do not doubt their ability to follow through with a good bit of the doing.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:43 (fifteen years ago)
If they don't do it directly, they'll do it by giving all the money in the world to the bank that is just gagging to make you homeless, and then later on the stump they'll bitch about the evil banks.
Ugh. It's all so nauseating.
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:47 (fifteen years ago)
Could it be? Could it happen that our top journalists might stop pretending it's normal for leaders of big political movements to actually have no idea what they're talking about? First O'Donnell, now Special Agent Cooper?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:57 (fifteen years ago)
But as of now, I’ve got you down as not opposed to a single government program.
oh man
― browns zero loss (brownie), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:41 (fifteen years ago)
Today's NYT has the full story on the GOP recovery.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:43 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, good read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?hp
― kenan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:50 (fifteen years ago)
Should I be afraid or relieved that so many beneficiaries of a national campaign predicated on "cutting spending" have yet to pinpoint just what it is they plan to cut beyond "waste?"
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:35 (fifteen years ago)
Who gives a shit, their strategy was awesomeTM
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:52 (fifteen years ago)
"cutting waste" = "making change" = lie-la-lie
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:04 (fifteen years ago)
helping fix 19% real unemployment plus the massive deficit their policies caused is immaterial compared to returning to majority status. that's pretty gangster. and they got away with it! balls of steel. if they keep outplaying the dems like this there'll be a gop president and filibuster-proof senate majority come 2012. then we are all well and truly fucked
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:27 (fifteen years ago)
Playing devil's advocate, some plans ARE out there. (A few below, from Boehner's website, based primarily on reverting to the 2008 budget levels.) Admittedly, these are the obvious cuts (stimulus funds, Fannie/Freddie) and mention nothing about health, education etc.
Table 1: Estimated Savings From Republican Spending Reduction Proposals(in billions of dollars)Proposal Estimated 10-Year SavingsCancel Unused TARP Funds 16Cancel Unspent ‘Stimulus’ Funds 266Cut and Cap Discretionary Spending 925aReduce Government Employment 35Freeze Government Pay 30Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 30Total 1,302
a This estimate is based on returning non-defense discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 baseline levels.
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:33 (fifteen years ago)
Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 30
oh ffs this again
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:40 (fifteen years ago)
Haha, yeah I know, I did say "obvious!"
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:41 (fifteen years ago)
Cancel Unspent ‘Stimulus’ Funds 266
Grown men using sarcastic scare quotes on this. smdh
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:43 (fifteen years ago)
http://images.politico.com/global/news/101103_self_funders_ap_328.jpg
lol-worthy photo combo here
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 15:58 (fifteen years ago)
nyt article is an eye-opener, but it really shouldn't be. parts of it seem a little bit too brief:
They also tried to push Democrats into retirement, using what was described in the presentation as “guerilla tactics” like chasing Democratic members down with video cameras and pressing them to explain votes or positions. (One target, Representative Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, had to apologize for manhandling one of his inquisitors in a clip memorialized on YouTube. Only this week did Republican strategists acknowledge they were behind the episode.)
Improbably, Mr. Boehner’s team turned the notion that Republicans could not afford to be the “Party of No” — or, in his words, the party of “Hell no” — on its ear, successfully portraying it as a virtue in the face of Mr. Obama’s legislative priorities. But even that team never predicted the sort of victory they experienced Tuesday night.
“I remember people laughing at me back when they thought Republicans were a lot like dinosaurs,” Representative Pete Sessions, the Texan who leads the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in an interview. “Our mission statement was to retire Nancy Pelosi. That was the whole mission statement.”
so it seems pretty clear to me that the official GOP, the unofficial tea-party movement (both the spontaneous and paid-for versions) and the breitbart/fox/talk radio engine, aren't coincidentally working on the same project, they are orgainizationally working on the same project. like, explicitly.
there's a million things i want to say about what could or should be done to counter this, but man. i think i'm cynical but i'm probably not cynical enough.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:23 (fifteen years ago)
this is a surprise to you why?
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:24 (fifteen years ago)
this is basically the only thing Republicans know how to do
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:25 (fifteen years ago)
ie raise money and win elections. beyond that they're fucking useless.
because we spend all our time here arguing about exactly to what degree it's ok to be disappointed with elected democrats, and it seems as if there is a similar amount of hand-wringing happening "over there". i had assumed some kind of symmetry. meanwhile they're figuring out how to wring maximum gains out of the moment no matter what and we aren't.
it want to say a blanket statement like: conservative politics are always easier because representing the powerful is always a downhill run.
xp yeah exactly.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:29 (fifteen years ago)
well no i take that back, not exactly -- winning elections is pretty useful!
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
and they basically lost the senate because of that
― iatee, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:33 (fifteen years ago)
or 'didn't win' rather
ie raise money and win elections.
So you're saying Dems don't do ANYTHING well
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:36 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:38 (fifteen years ago)
like, i just had a big argument with my dad over email (he lives in iowa) about the supreme court judges getting bounced, for the first time ever!, over gay marriage.
he was basically mounting an argument as if it were fact, as if it was enough to say, this is unprecedented! and these are civil rights! which ought to be beyond tampering by mere politics! did they even READ THE DECISION?? IT'S EMINENTLY REASONABLE!!
and i'm like, jesus christ, are you just trying to make yourself feel better by being right? if there's a mechanism somewhere, no matter how novel and/or hypocritical to use it, they are going to find a way to crank it in their direction. if anything i think the lesson is that liberals can't take anything for granted. if you find yourself saying "surely they wouldn't...?" the answer is already absolutely they will
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:39 (fifteen years ago)
although what happened is fucked up, if we're voting for judges - people who do make political decisions, *shouldn't* it be politicized?
(ps I don't think we should be voting for judges)
― iatee, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)
like, I would have absolutely no problem if the reverse happened w/ conservatives judges
(well, no problem beyond "I don't think we should be voting for judges")
― iatee, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:52 (fifteen years ago)
can't wait for president palin. and vice president rubiohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr3sj8q5lfYcurious to see who they pin the next market crash on
― kamerad, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:56 (fifteen years ago)
well yeah iatee but that's the problem, it is political, but too may liberals like my dad are continually behind the 8-ball of politics because they know they are right on principle. and i highly highly doubt liberals would do the same to a conservative judge, because it "just isn't done" or "just woulnd't be right"
to get a little pedantic, here's how it happened: there's a specific legal mechanism in iowa: the judges are appointed by governor (maybe with leg approval?), and every two (?) years the voters can approve or reject them (i think a blank vote counts as a yes). since the early 60s when this procedure was created, every judge has passed voter approval. so it seems like judicial recall is some dusty corner of the iowa code but really it was a huge vulnerability staring them in the face.
and like water finding its own level, the national anti-gay groups and iowa conservatives created a campaign to inject that emotion and energy into something that liberals considered a) technical and b) out-of-bounds. i'm saying they should have seen it coming and had boots on the ground in defense right away. monday morning qb'ing i know...
it's a similar issue to senate approval of judicial and sub-cabinet appointees, secret holds, all of that. if they can do it they will, and the public doesn't know the difference.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:59 (fifteen years ago)
i highly highly doubt liberals would do the same to a conservative judge
FDR tried
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
I think it's important that everyone remind themselves that:
Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 millionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html
But yes, keep telling yourself it was all those dirty Republicans spending dirty money in a massive power grab.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:06 (fifteen years ago)
I'm sure that math varies depending on what money you're counting
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:08 (fifteen years ago)
no, i don't buy that analysis -- the whole story of this election is the outside money. i think the campaign was run from the outside. sure official dem raising/expenditures beat official gop r/e, but you look at the non-campaign campaign and it goes hard the other way.
the conservative donor class wasn't signing checks to michael steele, they were giving it all to karl rove like they did before.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:09 (fifteen years ago)
well Bam supporters did a pretty good job of ignoring that flood of Wall St money in '08, since they knew it was $10 checks that got him to $300 million
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:10 (fifteen years ago)
well we can all sleep better knowing wall street won't do that again...
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
^^^this
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:12 (fifteen years ago)
Note to self: RTFA
Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:34 (fifteen years ago)
Let's meet our new president, Chief Justice Roberts.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
short requiem for russ feingold:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKBDa9PcNng
check the dude off camera sighing "ohh boy" right in the middle
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
California GOP lost across the board
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7T8FzOworpe3wh2SYadn3WlgAC5w9sIGNKa90f9ZpMrU_pPk&t=1&usg=__vMFqcHyuJxmJFq_ylh43LQanEuw=
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:13 (fifteen years ago)
Massachusetts too. Scott Brown is the only elected Republican in the state, and currently the most liberal Republican after the Maine twosome.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
still loling at erick erickson going after him. "thank you for your service to our zombie hordes, we will consume you now"
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
don't remember seeing this Bill Moyers speech at Harvard last week ref'd here... via the Jeff Wells movie Blog:
"Wecome to the Plutocracy"
http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/11/opus_dei_robber.php
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
hey the Tea Party has PRINCIPLES you know
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)
I don't at all agree with Moyers' simplistic binaries about McKinley and Bryan.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:29 (fifteen years ago)
well, it's a good case study in the differences -- right-wing rage may be counter-productive at times but it's nearly always re-applied in force to the concrete political system & electioneering. it seems to me that left-wing rage is as likely as not to turn away from those things, whether the moral reasoning is fair or not.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)
I forgot how heavily involved you were in the Cross of Gold scrum.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:31 (fifteen years ago)
Where is the Democrat version of Santorum.jpg?
― The New Dirty Vicar, Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:57 (fifteen years ago)
TOO SOON
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 4 November 2010 19:21 (fifteen years ago)
love the word "scrum"
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:21 PM (2 hours ago)
ha it's kind of a parallel to the blue dog/progressive dynamic, no?
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:25 (fifteen years ago)
i guess president scott brown was kind of a special case but it was pretty clear he'd be a moderate from the get-go
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
maybe? i don't really know what you mean tho.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:29 (fifteen years ago)
ha i'm saying that it's not particularly suprising (to me, of all people) to see disdain for moderates from people more on the radical side of things. scott brown is definitely a little more interesting since electing him president kinda legitimized the tea party in a way, even if he was never really one of them
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:38 (fifteen years ago)
I can't think of a single Dem candidate who got elected thanks to a progressive base that subsequently turned on them when it turned out they were "secret" centrists o wait OBAMA
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
yeah you're right i missed that in my first post
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
The progressive base of Obama may grumble or fail to show up at the polls in the same spectacular numbers but the big difference between '08 and now is independents who swung pretty massively to the Repubs.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:41 (fifteen years ago)
right, i get you
though yeah, it's pretty refreshing? to see them treat brown in such a nakedly transactional and opportunistic manner. "we love you as far as your run against the warm corpse of ted kennedy, but really we do hate you." i feel like this is the difference between the two sides in that respect, but obviously it's case-by-case, and 2010 might not be the year to judge.
note also in that times article that the GOP architects of the 2-year comeback strategy were openly admiring rahm emmanuel's deep-map-damn-the-purity strategy. don't know whether to shudder or applaud
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:45 (fifteen years ago)
I have a coworker who voted across the board Republican because no one party should control the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Of course, he lives in MA, so that plan didn't really work out very well for him.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:46 (fifteen years ago)
so basically he likes it when nothing gets done
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
Independents going for Obama in '08 seem like the exception to the independents-skew-right rule. Like, a lot of the seats lost this time around were in places that went McCain, ie not traditional Dem bases. Which makes '08 the outlier (says I, who knows shit about statistics).
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
Basically.
― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
The ultimate in right wing (pseudo) anarchism; make sure govmt can't do any more harm by keeping it perpetually log-jammed and thus 'organic' society and the market can function as unhindered as possible.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Thursday, 4 November 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
market can function as unhindered as possible
this is a mischaracterization it's more like so the market can function with the most plutocratic policies possible
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 21:09 (fifteen years ago)
I'm putting words into a strawman's mouth, shakey.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Thursday, 4 November 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
lol Boehner called this election "the most historic election in 60, 70 years"
O RLY
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 November 2010 21:19 (fifteen years ago)
a "conservative" estimate
― ain't no half-trollin (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
Actually, apparently I'm wrong about this.
Only about 5 million people voted for Obama in '08 and then voted for a Republican this last election.
― A Reclaimer Hewn With (Michael White), Thursday, 4 November 2010 21:49 (fifteen years ago)
Illinois has a similar procedure and, from what I can gather, judges are very rarely recalled here, too. But I don't think it's because of some sense of propriety or anything, but because the vast majority of voters don't know enough about them to feel comfortable registering a vote, so they just leave that part of the ballot blank. Also, there's usually a lot of them (not just Supreme Court judges but circuit and appellate court judges, too), and people don't want to spend 10 minutes in the voting booth. Now, some of us who care a bit more will research the recommendations of various bar associations the day before, with the result that we might then try to give the boot to a judge that seems particularly terrible. But there are never going to be enough people that make that extra effort for it to actually make a difference. Unless, that is, a widespread campaign is waged to get people to pay attention and vote a particular way.
― jaymc, Thursday, 4 November 2010 22:55 (fifteen years ago)
Kooks in our local village got something approved to force doctors to give out all sorts of horror story warnings about vaccines before administering them. Basically a bunch of compulsive caveats fostered by the anti-vaccine set. So if anyone wonders why Oak Park, IL gets its very own whooping cough outbreak ...
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 November 2010 00:05 (fifteen years ago)
if rubio turns out to be the nominee,or vp nominee, in 2012, i'll look back in anger at kendrick meek's refusal to step aside this year. if he had, crist might have edged out rubio (i think, without meek -- who never had a chance -- it would have been roughly 50/50 between crist and rubio).
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 00:12 (fifteen years ago)
I think this is a smart assessment, even taking into account Sullivan's well-known Obama worship. The three key words are italicized.
― clemenza, Friday, 5 November 2010 01:06 (fifteen years ago)
turnout, turnout, turnout. no rockstar president on ballot, naive skateboarders stay home.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 November 2010 03:40 (fifteen years ago)
so depressing, especially concerning the possible rollback of HCR. and i know obama would veto an outright repeal, but there's two ways the GOP could gut the new program anyway: (a) defund key aspects of it in spending bills and (b) threaten to default on US debt obligations unless obama rolls-back all or much of HCR.
oh, and a spending freeze and permanent extension of the bush-era tax cuts, too! great idea for a hobbling economy.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 16:17 (fifteen years ago)
I really can't believe the Republicans would threaten to halt the raising of the debt ceiling.
― Gukbe, Friday, 5 November 2010 16:20 (fifteen years ago)
Obama still has to sign spending bills. He can threaten them in a stand-off.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:22 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, but there are real consequences to this game of chicken, with much higher stakes than merely the gov't freeze of the 90s. threatening to default on US debt obligations seems to me to seriously threaten global instability (as would, for example, massive devaluation of the dollar, which would, i think, have the same effect as defaulting on US global debts).
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 16:27 (fifteen years ago)
can envision both Obama backing down AND getting blamed for the carnage
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
it's the reality, not the optics, that matter on this one.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
morbius otm about o's potential for being wimping out and being scapegoated. obama used to get tons of credit on his long game. curious to see how well-planted the "pre-existing conditions" and "on parents' health care plans till you're 27" memes really are. if those two frame the HCR debate, instead of talk of blanket repeal regardless of specifics, then i'll think more of obama again
― kamerad, Friday, 5 November 2010 16:36 (fifteen years ago)
global implications of US debt default:
That is just the U.S side of the equation. Our economy is 40% of the planetary economy. If we default on our debt, the holdings of many nations will be affected as well. With a massively weakened dollar, many countries who peg their currency to ours would face an instant crisis. The ripple affects would almost certainly throw the world into another Great Depression. As bad as all of this might be, what makes me crazy is that it is a policy that is based on massive ignorance and misunderstanding of economy. Right now we have a demand problem. Rachel Maddow has been great explaining this again and again, sadly the people she needs to reach don't watch her show. The fact of the matter is consumers are not spending because of the employment picture in the U.S. This means that business is not spending on hiring and expansion as there is an over capacity in production and a lack of demand. If the consumer is not spending, and business is not spending then the only way to get things moving is if the Government spends. Right now it is incredibly cheap for the Government to borrow. The interest rate on 10 year bonds is a paltry 2.4% . When you need to spend lots of borrowed money the time to do it is when it is cheap to borrow it. All that will end and end for a very long time if we default on our debt by not having an increased debt ceiling. It is not like talking or threatening to do this is without consequences itself. The world is a nervous place in economic terms. Just the serious threat of a debt default could cause investors to take shelter somewhere other than the U.S. dollar and the stock market. This could further impede our economic recovery or even send us back into a hard recession. Would a Tea Party Republican majority be this stupid? One likes to think that they would not. Even though many of them have a warped type of patriotism, they do like to think they are putting the interest of the nation first. If they can be showed the devastating consequences of such a rash ploy then perhaps they will back away from it. Sadly, given the things they have said and doubled down on in this election cycle there is very little evidence to prop that hope up. The radical Republicans are detached from reality. Their base is even more so. The epistemological closure created by Fox News and Talk Radio is nearly complete. To allow folks who don't see reality clearly into office is always dangerous. It is even more so when they are pledging to take actions, based solely on ideology, that will cripple this country for a decade or more.
As bad as all of this might be, what makes me crazy is that it is a policy that is based on massive ignorance and misunderstanding of economy. Right now we have a demand problem. Rachel Maddow has been great explaining this again and again, sadly the people she needs to reach don't watch her show. The fact of the matter is consumers are not spending because of the employment picture in the U.S. This means that business is not spending on hiring and expansion as there is an over capacity in production and a lack of demand. If the consumer is not spending, and business is not spending then the only way to get things moving is if the Government spends.
Right now it is incredibly cheap for the Government to borrow. The interest rate on 10 year bonds is a paltry 2.4% . When you need to spend lots of borrowed money the time to do it is when it is cheap to borrow it. All that will end and end for a very long time if we default on our debt by not having an increased debt ceiling.
It is not like talking or threatening to do this is without consequences itself. The world is a nervous place in economic terms. Just the serious threat of a debt default could cause investors to take shelter somewhere other than the U.S. dollar and the stock market. This could further impede our economic recovery or even send us back into a hard recession.
Would a Tea Party Republican majority be this stupid? One likes to think that they would not. Even though many of them have a warped type of patriotism, they do like to think they are putting the interest of the nation first. If they can be showed the devastating consequences of such a rash ploy then perhaps they will back away from it. Sadly, given the things they have said and doubled down on in this election cycle there is very little evidence to prop that hope up.
The radical Republicans are detached from reality. Their base is even more so. The epistemological closure created by Fox News and Talk Radio is nearly complete. To allow folks who don't see reality clearly into office is always dangerous. It is even more so when they are pledging to take actions, based solely on ideology, that will cripple this country for a decade or more.
beyond this, imagine the heightened risk of war in such a scenario. we've borrowed how much from china? to turn around and say, "we're not paying," would cause panic and -- it seems to me -- dangerous hostility and nationalism.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 16:39 (fifteen years ago)
who proofreads that website?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)
lol no-one, apparently. i'll dig up more acceptable source-matter later.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)
I have no idea what this "optics" shit is
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:41 (fifteen years ago)
I got some bifocals for ya.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
I had remained blissfully unaware til now, so luck was on my side.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/05/18/optic_nerve/
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:44 (fifteen years ago)
this analysis needs another turn of the screw. the "tea party" republicans are nuts and will insist on no more debt ever, sure. the GOP leadership and their donors, tho, know exactly what's going on, and the "debt crisis" will be used to kill something. the US is not going to default; i think it's a matter of how little obama and reid give away in the process.
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Friday, 5 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
The likelihood of republicans actually hitting the switch on a new Global Depression is far, far outbalanced by the likelihood of democrats capitulating to whatever demands they make.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
Perhaps we should be asking if the Elite Global Oligarchy would benefit from such an action.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
the EGO?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
but those demands... point the way... to further progress down the shitter, global economy-wise
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)
Would a Tea Party Republican majority be this stupid?
I consider this question to be asked and answered
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)
so pelosi is running for dem minority leader
― max, Friday, 5 November 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
we'll trade you HCR repeal for the debt ceiling. d'ya feel lucky punk? do ya?
― potholes and esso assos (Hunt3r), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
poor Chuck Schumer.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
that's the best news i've heard all week!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, good for her. ill bet she gets it too--& i hope she thrashes heath shuler
― max, Friday, 5 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
bon chance comrade pelosi. considering all the people who would vote for one of the conservadems (shuler?) bit the dust i'd say it's in the bag.
lol xp
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
seriously, that actually gives me some hope
now if we could just get reid to sign up for that spine transplant operation
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
seriously – the beloved Chuck Schumer is probably as pissed as Mitch McConnell.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
i never know what to think of reid. sure we all know he's a big pushover, except for, well, everything he's done. and he just won!
xp schumer will just have to content himself with being a rich senator with a job for life
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:44 (fifteen years ago)
attagirl Nancy
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
I can't imagine she would even run unless she knew ahead of time that she had the votes. because she is not stupid and this is what she's good at.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 November 2010 17:53 (fifteen years ago)
as great a leader/cheerleader as she's been, would love to see her in constant attack mode on boehner and cantor
― kamerad, Friday, 5 November 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)
go get 'em nancy. a great speaker.
yeah. they're currently developing a north american union linking the u.s., canada and mexico, with common currency called the Amero.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)
Not sure if this is the right thread, but MSNBC fails once again to really commit to becoming the Fox News of the Left.
― Gukbe, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:10 (fifteen years ago)
maybe they'll hire alan grayson
― kamerad, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)
oh wouldn't that be great
― DJP, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:29 (fifteen years ago)
I was just thinking that Countdown's biggest problem was that the host wasn't enough of a vortex of self-importance
Curious how anyone - pols, the press, the people - will react once they realize the vague platform of so many incoming congress persons was no more than a vague platform. I wonder if the newly elected insurgents will get some specifics together. If not, the traditional Republicans may benefit by looking sane in comparison to Rand Paul, et al. It's sort of a win-win for them. They get to "compromise" and look responsible, with the Dems more or less left out of the loop save Obama, who has made a habit of stepping in the mess made by others and shows no signs of letting up now. Getting defensive about the ginned up controversy surrounding your India trip? Recasting it as an economic mission? Yeah, that'll really satisfy the nuts.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:31 (fifteen years ago)
Curious how anyone - pols, the press, the people - will react once they realize the vague platform of so many incoming congress persons was no more than a vague platform
Let's see, how did it work for the Dems that got voted in during 2008?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 5 November 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)
dude should just lean into the elitist charges and start saying, 'yeah, i went harvard. i really do know better than you. fuiud'
― Gukbe, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)
josh, heritage foundation has specifics to cut through the vagary -- $343 billion budget trimhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budgetlots of this can't get enacted, but in the aggregate might serve as a useful shield when repubs are pressed for specifics in the coming weeks
― kamerad, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
Return Pell Grants to their 2009 funding level of $24 billion, which is still double the 2007 level.
Yes, brilliant plan! It's a good thing tuition is still at 2009 levels!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 5 November 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)
details details
― kamerad, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
Who, Grayson? AFAICT that's been the cornerstone of his political platform!
― DJP, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
no, that was for the Obama comment. replied without xposting. you could tell he wanted to do that at least a little bit during his press conference though.
― Gukbe, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:48 (fifteen years ago)
Curious how anyone - pols, the press, the people - will react once they realize the vague platform of so many incoming congress persons was no more than a vague platform.
won't matter. i think that, for a lot of people, they're looking less for policy specifics and more for someone who seems to have similar ideas, outlooks and philosophy. that's why -- even if they're utterly hypocritical in practice -- republicans can rally their troops by screaming about "profligate spending!," and make empty promises to "slash the budget!"
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 18:49 (fifteen years ago)
I want Obama to continue doing what he is doing, but start his negotiation process from more liberal positions and make more of a point of asking for concessions from the people on the right in exchange for his concessions from the left. I don't want him to turn into Alan Grayson.
― DJP, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:52 (fifteen years ago)
Are any of you aware of anything analytical that's been written since the election on how the status of the wars this cycle vs. 2008 affecting things?
― Euler, Friday, 5 November 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)
want Obama to continue doing what he is doing, but start his negotiation process from more liberal positions and make more of a point of asking for concessions from the people on the right in exchange for his concessions from the left
i want hit john boehner across the back with a steel chair.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 18:55 (fifteen years ago)
. . . during the state of the union address.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 18:56 (fifteen years ago)
telling you guys, for snarky takedowns of bullshit politico articles, no one tops tom scocca
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/11/05/is-highfalutin-barack-obama-humble-enough-to-listen-to-politico-yet.aspx
― max, Friday, 5 November 2010 19:17 (fifteen years ago)
Who is meant to be reading this? Here's another insight Harris and Thrush came up with:
Obama’s predicament of 2010 suggests another refrain of the modern presidency: Its occupants arrive in office shaped pre-eminently by experience, with character formed well before leaders reach the White House.
The modern presidency! Whereas James Madison and Ulysses S. Grant were kept in dark rooms with drawn velvet draperies from infancy to middle age, at which point they were taught the rudiments of the English language and installed in the White House as perfect blank slates. William McKinley was elected after a passing crowd glimpsed him through an upper window of a nunnery.
The writers are so taken with their premise, they come back to it three paragraphs later:
[W]hat’s clear in 2010 is that Obama is like all presidents a product of his past.
Actually, unlike other presidents, Obama is a product of his future, and is aging backwards; in 2022, he will turn from 35 to 34 and become ineligible for the presidency.
― max, Friday, 5 November 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)
i can't open non-gawker links, sorry
― buzza, Friday, 5 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
love this whole presidential asian trip is costing $200,000,000 a day rumor (when afghanistan costs $190,000,000 a day). it's like kicking the nerd after he just got beat up. gotta wonder sometimes what shape the country would be in if they spent their energy messaging agendas that would help everyone, not just rich people
― kamerad, Friday, 5 November 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
$200,000,000 a day! that's outrageous.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 19:35 (fifteen years ago)
If we're paying that much money, we'd better end up owning India. Obama can write it off as an investment.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 November 2010 20:12 (fifteen years ago)
"William McKinley was elected after a passing crowd glimpsed him through an upper window of a nunnery."
lol max
― elephant (rob), Friday, 5 November 2010 20:16 (fifteen years ago)
Democrats propose raising level on Bush tax cuts to 500k or 1 million
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 November 2010 20:47 (fifteen years ago)
“It also simplifies the contrast message, by making it clear what Republicans are fighting for: a tax cut that is literally for millionaires.”
lol that guy thinks the Democrats are savvy enough to pull that off.
― Gukbe, Friday, 5 November 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)
Sounds like the dems are once again leading off with the ol' concessions first strategy. Go team.
― Moodles, Friday, 5 November 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
"500 K or 1 million" sounds like it'll be at 10 million soon. Victory!
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:24 (fifteen years ago)
Curious how anyone - pols, the press, the people - will react once they realize the vague platform of so many incoming congress persons was no more than a vague platformLet's see, how did it work for the Dems that got voted in during 2008?
Wait, not sure what you're saying here. The Dems in 2008 had a pretty clear set of goals and did their best to achieve what they set out to do, from HCR to saving a few big industries and forestalling a depression. What they didn't achieve was not for lack of trying but due to the strength of the opposition. If anything, the class of '08 may have been punished at the polls for actually doing what they said they would do, and in fact, the closer they came to doing what they said they would do (like HCR) the more they were punished.
The Tea Party people ran on a platform of balancing the budget and cutting stuff, but the individual candidates have been less than forthcoming about their specific targets. I think they're hosed, because once they get specific, they'll lose support (they're called entitlement programs for a reason), and if they don't "cut spending," their ostensibly frugal constituents will throw hissy fits.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 November 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
he Dems in 2008 had a pretty clear set of goals and did their best to achieve what they set out to do, from HCR to saving a few big industries and forestalling a depression. What they didn't achieve was not for lack of trying but due to the strength of the opposition
Sorry, but I don't agree. The Obama White House, for reasons I don't care to mention (again), was never interested in any sort of liberal agenda: it wanted "achievements." Look at the Blue Dogs -- decimated after Tuesday. There are more progressives left standing after Tuesday's debacle than so-called Blue Dogs. Once again, Dems lose elections when they pose as diluted Republicans.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
Way too easy to blame the right.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)
Dems showed little to no interest in helping citizens facing foreclosures or crafting genuine financial reform.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
Once again, Dems lose elections when they pose as diluted Republicans.
a key lesson they refuse to learn
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, those damn diluted republicans like tom perriello
― max, Friday, 5 November 2010 21:33 (fifteen years ago)
Putting aside the differences in their respective districts and states, Tom Perriello (and Russ Feingold) lost because their constituents still don't have jobs and are getting kicked out of their homes.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:35 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know much about Perriello's district, but if he was run in a traditional red zone -- one that decided to give him a chance in 2008 because the last eight years had been so desperate -- then it's no surprise he lost, despite his great record.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
Oh, you can argue the Dems compromised, and I agree there. But while the agenda may not have been as progressive as I or others may have wanted, I don't see how anyone can claim the Obama administration has acted like diluted Republicans, at least domestically. Now, if you're talking overseas conflicts, sure. But domestically? Nah. I'll give you diluted progressives, though.
And again:
Was this really for lack of trying? It's here that you can blame the Blue Dogs, true diluted Republicans, who derailed everything. The progressives or liberals were shut down by these dudes, and - diluted Republicans that they were - the Blue Dogs were still stomped on by the Tea Party and Republicans in those traditionally red districts.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 November 2010 21:37 (fifteen years ago)
Once again, Dems lose elections when they pose as diluted Republicans
i suspect that given their districts, those "blue dogs" would have lost no matter what they did. now the takeaway is that they might as well have supported their party. to think they would have saved their jobs by voting more liberally is unsound imo.
xpost and covered above
― potholes and esso assos (Hunt3r), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:38 (fifteen years ago)
But while the agenda may not have been as progressive as I or others may have wanted, I don't see how anyone can claim the Obama administration has acted like diluted Republicans, at least domestically.
You can argue -- Andrew Sullivan has, and that's why he endorsed him in 2008 -- that Obama has governed as a true conservative. He has no interest in disrupting existing structures; he wants to assure the people they're fucking over that they still work.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:39 (fifteen years ago)
too high a level of abstraction to analyze "conservative" v. "progressive" imo.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 21:51 (fifteen years ago)
alfred, your second post there doesn't agree with the first.
There are more progressives left standing after Tuesday's debacle than so-called Blue Dogs. Once again, Dems lose elections when they pose as diluted Republicans
i don't think the moderateness of the blue dogs doomed them directly -- it worked well enough to get a lot of them into office in districts that obama wound up losing. i don't think if they were more leftist over the past two years they would have survived this week. if you're paul krugman you'd argue that IF the whole party were more committed to keynsianism and left-populism THEN the economy would be in better shape in real terms, and THEN more dems would have hung on. but that's a few steps of speculation that i'm not 100% convinced by.
the key difference is that in 06 and 08 rahm emmanuel said: "look at all these moderate districts that hate bush, let's run moderate democrats in all of them," and it worked. this year the GOP said: "look at all those same moderate districts that now hate obama, let's run really conservative republicans in all of them," and that worked too!
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:55 (fifteen years ago)
But those same BD's would have at the very least lost in closer elections had they passed legislation that actually addressed unemployment and foreclosures.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 21:56 (fifteen years ago)
Can you name some of the Blue Dogs who would have won their district if they'd been more liberal?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 5 November 2010 21:57 (fifteen years ago)
Nah, I'm not Chuck Todd.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
A good overview.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/57587
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:02 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, November 5, 2010 10:01 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
or you're wrong
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 5 November 2010 22:03 (fifteen years ago)
I'm not sure what your point is. Look at the numbers: there are more liberals left in the House than BD's.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
if you're paul krugman you'd argue that IF the whole party were more committed to keynsianism and left-populism THEN the economy would be in better shape in real terms, and THEN more dems would have hung on. but that's a few steps of speculation that i'm not 100% convinced by.
i think this something that HAS to be assumed, if you've got any faith in your leanings at all. to the point, and to answer matt armstrong's question, it's not that they have to "be more liberal" - it's that they have to "govern better".
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
governing better -- given the economic climate -- requires being more liberal. for instance, the stimulus could have, and probably should have, been substantially bigger (which is "more liberal")
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
(which is an example of being "more liberal")
-- is what i meant
Exactly. If the last two election cycles have proven anything, it's the uselessness of labels. Citizens want to see their legislators spend their taxes wisely, protect their jobs, and offer them some relief when they lose their homes.
All I've implied in my last series of posts is that the "tactical" nonsense Rahm Emmanuel gambled on in 2006 and 2008 means shit if you're not looking out for your constituents.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
and it also means worthies like Feingold and Perriello are punished with the rest of the lot.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, November 5, 2010 10:05 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
Yes, in liberal districts. The swing districts are where the blue dogs were, and what happened? Which are the districts they would have won if they'd been more liberal? TX-23?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 5 November 2010 22:12 (fifteen years ago)
there are more liberals left in the House than BD's.
argh i'm going to tear out my hair here. pelosi or keith ellison or anthony weiner will never ever lose an election to republican. so, be a liberal democrat is the solution to winning elections? sure, in san francisco, minneapolis and brooklyn! the huge majorities of 06-08 got into areas totally unlike that.
i think we're having two different arguments at the same time -- yes better economic peformance would have helped overall, but it's always the swing districts that are the most vulnerable. in bad times it's those reps that get bounced. anti-obama fervor might have knocked off plenty of those ppl even if unemployment was 7% or even 5%.
the difference is, i think that in moderate districts dems run moderate candidates. in the same places the GOP runs doctrinaire conservatives and just won them all.
(k3v i generally agree w/ krugman but man i dunno if any climb out of this is going to be a matter of turning the crank harder, and will take global cooperation that just isn't there. from what i can understand the german and chinese central banks are affecting unemployment here as much as the fed is)
many xps
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:16 (fifteen years ago)
daniel i think you missed the rhetorical distinction i was attempting to make. by being more liberal, the economy would be in better shape (this is what we as liberals assume), which would be more favorable for those in power. if there isn't a serious attempt to govern the right way, things can't improve as fast as they need to, which is bad news when an entire congressional chamber is elected every two years
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:24 (fifteen years ago)
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:25 (fifteen years ago)
i agree with much of that. got to run shortly, but i'll try to circle back later and dig a bit deeper into it.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 22:27 (fifteen years ago)
after the heat game, of course.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 5 November 2010 22:28 (fifteen years ago)
got to have priorities.
read that as "gop to have priorities" and was all "link??"
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
Re: employment, given the numbers, I'm not sure what any administration or congress can currently do to foster employment aside from paying companies to hire people (which was essentially part of the stimulus, anyway). Unemployment is high enough right now that it transcends politics, and we're all going to have to wait for things to sort themselves out. Now I suppose things could still get worse, and on that front I suppose the Republicans and especially the Tea Party have the advantage. Then again, the latter crew kind of wants things to get worse, though it's frightening to hear them brush off concerns that letting all the companies and institutions supposedly too big to fail actually fail might have some negative effects beyond said institution and hurt the rest of us plebes. The trickle down economics tap flows both ways, don'tcha know.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 November 2010 22:36 (fifteen years ago)
The stimulus should've been more RE: unemployment but every deep recession is like this, unemployment lags behind growth. Still, it was no time for half measures imo.
― browns zero loss (brownie), Friday, 5 November 2010 22:55 (fifteen years ago)
Citizens want to see their legislators spend their taxes wisely, protect their jobs, and offer them some relief when they lose their homes.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn),
While there may be some common ground, "spend their taxes wisely" is in the eye of the beholder. Right-wingers and their corporate backers have been deluging people with a message on this that most liberals don't agree with. While you're right about looking out for your constituents (and putting Geithner and Summers in charge on the economy was not a way to do that) the last two years have also shown that you have to constantly communicate and make your case that you are spending money wisely and looking out for constituents. The White House lost the spin war on health care, the stimulus, tarp, mortgage crisis, etc. (in addition to using half-measures as substance). Where were they when tea party types were going nuts at health care sessions around the country in August 2009? You have to figure out a way to sell what you're doing to both blue-dog districts and liberal ones. It's obviously not easy when the economy is as bad as it is and you're have to get your message out in a Fox News/talk radio/bland to conservative mainstream media world, but the White House sure didn't do as much as the 2008 campaign did.
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 6 November 2010 00:39 (fifteen years ago)
goole and armstrong otm w/r/t blue dogs.
in a wave election, moderate dems are gonna lose their seats disproportionally because moderate dems quite often represent...moderate districts! absent a very strong economic recovery, lots of these guys didn't have chance at re-election, and that should have been pretty obv even in 2008.
the sad thing is that they squirm like fishes trying to look like they're not associated w/ the party, fuck up a lot of bills and still fail at convincing swing voters. a lot of blanche lincoln types could go out on a better note if they accepted that their defeat was inevitable.
― iatee, Saturday, 6 November 2010 00:42 (fifteen years ago)
so maybe there should have been a push for a stronger economic recovery, i dunno
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Saturday, 6 November 2010 00:57 (fifteen years ago)
do you think I disagree w/ that statement?
― iatee, Saturday, 6 November 2010 01:30 (fifteen years ago)
san francisco, minneapolis and brooklyn!
Soooo the trifecta!
― Miss Garrote (Eric H.), Saturday, 6 November 2010 02:57 (fifteen years ago)
related: http://www.slate.com/id/2273708/
I'm not buying the autopsy or the obituary. In the national exit poll, voters were split on health care. Unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. Democrats lost a lot of seats that were never really theirs, and those who voted against the bill lost at a higher rate than did those who voted for it. But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.
― holy lolson (deej), Saturday, 6 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
the fact that we can recognize when we've won a battle is pretty weird to me. Oh noes hes just like clinton!!! ... except we now have health care
― holy lolson (deej), Saturday, 6 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
there's also a difference between health care 'the actual bill' and health care 'the long clusterfuck process of passing that bill'. I think #2 hurt us on some level - not a major factor in this election, but it certainly didn't help. but #1? not so much imo.
and tbf let's say we didn't spend all that time w/ health care - pretty sure we'd have spent the time in some other legislative clusterfuck process.
― iatee, Saturday, 6 November 2010 03:50 (fifteen years ago)
But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.
this is completely otm and should be on a banner hung across the entrance to the senate building. lesson to be learned imo is if you're gonna take a hit for a bill anyway, go big and make it a better bill
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Saturday, 6 November 2010 04:19 (fifteen years ago)
You're presuming that cuntbubbles like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman think of a "better bill" in the terms you or I do.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 6 November 2010 04:44 (fifteen years ago)
please don't say "cuntbubbles"
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Saturday, 6 November 2010 04:52 (fifteen years ago)
cuz of google searchers?
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 6 November 2010 05:29 (fifteen years ago)
feelin' wm saletan
― jaymc, Saturday, 6 November 2010 05:44 (fifteen years ago)
http://pbskids.org/zoom/show/snaps/images/zpic07-01.jpg
― jaymc, Saturday, 6 November 2010 05:45 (fifteen years ago)
http://js-kit.com/avatar/f5aa96fab516a1d8dee64dbd2b79d739.jpgE. Spike Thiesmeyer Pelosi- "We didn't lose, we won!" There there, Madam Speaker, take your medicine and go back to bed.Yesterday, 21:45:31 – Flag – Reply
― holy lolson (deej), Saturday, 6 November 2010 09:15 (fifteen years ago)
New governor of Ohio on high speed rail:
“Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future,” Mr. Kasich said at his first news conference after the election. “That train is dead.”
― browns zero loss (brownie), Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:18 (fifteen years ago)
forward-thinking.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:23 (fifteen years ago)
Heckuva job, Kasich. Everybody definitely wants to spend nearly three fucking hours driving from Cleveland to Columbus.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:25 (fifteen years ago)
New Jersey's governor stopped a project as well.
Core Republican policy--Anything that's expensive and will benefit the middle class is out, unless it involves tax cuts for the rich or subsidies for large corporations that support Republicans.
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:33 (fifteen years ago)
true, tho tbf, they'll package it differently, e.g., "we'll cut needless spending, unleash the engines of business again, and give those industries the tax breaks they urgently need in order to create middle-class jobs."
voila!
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:35 (fifteen years ago)
And their 'packaging' always works, even if the substance does not.
Pelosi wants to stay as leader of the House Dems. Republicans like this because they enjoy demonizing her. On the other hand, some Dems think Pelosi would be more effective and tenacious as the Dems leader and figure the Repubs will demonize whoever is leading the House Dems. A more moderate Dem might give in to the Republican leadership (uh, compromise in a bipartisan way! which only Dems are ever expected to do).
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:39 (fifteen years ago)
pelosi's great. let the GOP "demonize her." the GOP has taken back districts that were really already theirs, leaving a perhaps-more liberal congressional democratic caucus, with a constituency that's willing to tolerate more progressive policies. so embrace that freedom, and go nancy go.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
who else is running?
― ain't no half-trollin (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:44 (fifteen years ago)
as of yesterday, she had no opponents yet. some conservative democrat is expected to run against her (and lose).
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
link to nov. 5 story.
pelosi is a great choice--i mean beyond the fact that shes passed as much legislation as speaker since anyone since sam rayburn and the fact that shes the most liberal member of current dem leadership--it doesnt matter who's on top, that person will be demonized; plus republican representatives arent any more liked than democrats; plus obama will be the face of the 2012 election not pelosi; plus its the economy stupids
― max, Saturday, 6 November 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
^^^ I'll sign on to all those reasons, too.
― Aimless, Saturday, 6 November 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
Plus, she seems to lack the defensiveness that backs so many Dems against the ropes. Ironic, since people tried to stick her with the "mousy" tag, but she has been anything but demure (as opposed to ex-boxer Reid, who I just learned via a letter to the New Yorker is a Mormon - surprised the nutty right hasn't glommed onto that fodder yet, unless they're hedging their bets for a potential President Mitt).
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 6 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
the way congress works today I can't imagine any leader actually staying popular, so on the PR level it almost doesn't matter who's there, I think. which is to say that the problems of having pelosi on top are almost nil
― iatee, Saturday, 6 November 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
much love to nancyhttp://www.tnr.com/article/politics/78959/positive-nancy-pelosi-minority-leaderHer message is unmistakable: Democrats have nothing to apologize for, nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to regret.
― kamerad, Saturday, 6 November 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
Denny Hastert was a non-entity, wasn't he?
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 6 November 2010 19:15 (fifteen years ago)
love pelosi
― holy lolson (deej), Saturday, 6 November 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwsAImqAnz0
i know, linking to bill maher, but this is p good
― holy lolson (deej), Saturday, 6 November 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)
everyone p much agrees
The Daily Show
― ain't no half-trollin (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 6 November 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
― browns zero loss (brownie), Saturday, 6 November 2010 16:18 (4 hours ago)
Funnily enough, wasn't Ohio the state that had wayyyy too much rail planned, compared to the rest of the country, as a kickback to get it passed?
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 6 November 2010 21:14 (fifteen years ago)
plan was to hook up cleveland, columbus and cincinnati which, in the long run, could've meant heading south in to KY, TN, GA, FL (a north south corridor iow). anyway, we won't have to worry about it
― browns zero loss (brownie), Saturday, 6 November 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
Not necessary with that Canada-Mexica superhighway thing. People still talk about that?
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Saturday, 6 November 2010 22:02 (fifteen years ago)
republican opposition to decent mass transit is one of their more disgusting looks -- they know that a good mass transit system implemented by Democrats will buy said Dems at least a few election cycles of grateful working- and business-class voters, and they'll willing to fuck everybody over to keep that from happening
then again, it's not like a little more urgency on the part of people who actually support/believe in the q couldn't have moved it forward, which makes me think it's more of a "vote for us, we might do mass transit if we get around to it" instead of a "something we actually give a shit about" matter
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 6 November 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
I dunno, it's depressing. On a much smaller scale, the Euclid Corridor project (which connects downtown Cleveland, the Cleveland Clinic and the museum district/Case Western) has been a pretty nice boon to Cleveland. The usual suspects were against it of course. They all don't work obv but just dismissing a huge transit project along with the technology that could've developed in Ohio is really shortsighted imo.
― browns zero loss (brownie), Saturday, 6 November 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)
tea party-related news: texas considers medicaid withdrawal.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 22:26 (fifteen years ago)
OTM, but don't forget about the influence of the biggest enemy of high speed rail - Big Oil. Both parties have close ties to Big Oil, to an extent, but Republicans are pretty transparently just deliverers of the fossil fuel industry's message.
― Z S, Saturday, 6 November 2010 22:42 (fifteen years ago)
they're up to the same bullshit in dairylandhttp://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/06/ive-been-insane-on-a-train/In Wisconsin, the state department of transportation has now stopped all work on a high-speed rail line between Madison and Milwaukee. In a memo to project contractors and consultants, the Wisconsin Transportation Secretary told them to stop work for a “few days.” The memo indicated the temporary halt was “in light of the election results.”seriously, fuck the republicans
― kamerad, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:06 (fifteen years ago)
disgusting
― iatee, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:07 (fifteen years ago)
I keep thinking things can't get worse, but every week there's a new record
― Z S, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:09 (fifteen years ago)
it will get a lot worse, at least in terms of brinksmanship, tension, partisanship and risk.
a two-years, high-stakes game of chicken and subturfuge, designed to weaken and defeat the president.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:13 (fifteen years ago)
hope he spends half the sotu breaking this shit down case by case just to make these mooks have to play defense for once. knew the nj de-rail was just the tip of the iceberg. *love pelosi*
― bounding (tremendoid), Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:29 (fifteen years ago)
Even as an Obama defender I can tell you, do not get your hopes up for that. The SOTU will be all about "reaching across the aisle," because that's what the American People etc., etc., etc.
― clemenza, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:35 (fifteen years ago)
not necessarily. obama can go on the attack.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
and gain what? they've run rings around him in the PR war. he goes on the attack, and he's a sore loser/arrogant/disrespects the american people/angry black man/etc. imho the whole left establishment needs to go on the attack, the way the right's been at it now since the 1970s
― kamerad, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:42 (fifteen years ago)
meh. obama can, in the right situation, can run rings around the GOP. i want an attacking, campaign-mode obama.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:44 (fifteen years ago)
the thing is trains seems like a no-brainer for how to force the other side to at the very least put their cards on the table - any Dem politicians lurking here is how
D: "America is the greatest country in the world - we should have the greatest public transport in the world, too"R: "no we must not spend money on public transport"D: "why does the other part not want America to be the greatest country in the world?"
I mean I'm nobody's strategist but this seems like an easy 2 points
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
daniel, me too! but i also want a badass counterbalance to rush limbaugh, karl rove, glenn beck, et al. i don't think obama, mr. president and all, can turn the page alone. reagan had an insurgent heritage foundation/american enterprise institute/etc. establishment, handsomely funded by billionaire assholes, to help him paradigm shift. what does obama have? msnbc? the huffington post? ilxor.com?
― kamerad, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:53 (fifteen years ago)
aero, with all due respectR: "america already IS the greatest country in the world, you dirty liberal"
― kamerad, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
to be fair, obama can't be the counterpoint to limbaugh/beck. the "attack dog" role is for someone else. but he can still be aggressive.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
Good plan xp. The only complaints I hear from actual conservative/wingnut voters I know re. Minneapolis light rail is that it only runs commuter hours and should actually run *all the time* so I can't see train stuff as something good for newly elected wingnuts to attempt to murder.
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:55 (fifteen years ago)
Damn, just thought of this, good ol Clevo was due for a windmill farm off their "coast" in Lake Erie (it's windy as fuck), if that's kiboshed by our men Kasich and Boner then I will be smdh till the end of days.
― browns zero loss (brownie), Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:56 (fifteen years ago)
sure, daniel, but they're fight club, and we're an academic conference. we need more, not less, alan graysons
― kamerad, Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:56 (fifteen years ago)
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, November 6, 2010 6:44 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this is some hilarious rewriting of history. half the campaign was dudes like u wondering why obama wasnt attacking
― holy lolson (deej), Sunday, 7 November 2010 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
all the HRC fans liked her for being ON THE ATTACK
― holy lolson (deej), Sunday, 7 November 2010 01:46 (fifteen years ago)
and lord knows i do not want a left wing rush limbaugh. ugh!!!
yes, the left needs to work on messaging. no, we dont want / need annoying talk radio hosts. come on
― holy lolson (deej), Sunday, 7 November 2010 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
I am a huge fan of big mass transit projects. we need more of them and I would vote for basically any legislation that involved funding one.
that being said, there is not a single mass transit train system in the US that makes money, public or private. and this will always be used as a weapon by the right.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:15 (fifteen years ago)
well our highway systems don't make money either
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:20 (fifteen years ago)
I mean "America is the greatest country in the world - we should have the greatest public transport in the world, too"
I think 'the greatest public transport in the world' is like saying 'the greatest government health care system in the world' - it only works as a narrative if people are sold on the idea to begin with, which, for the most part, they aren't.
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:24 (fifteen years ago)
real cost of gasoline without factoring in road maintenance and traffic cops and tax breaks for oil companies and government subsidies for extraction and so forth doesn't make mass rail transit spending seem so profligate. but we are currently owned by big oil, so what are you gonna do
― kamerad, Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
that's a fair point, deej. but i always knew obama could attack effectively. and eventually, during the general-election campaign, he did.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
to be clear the 'mooks' i meant specifically were the repub governors/state pols that are gonna do a lot of the heavy work of dismantling the 'infrastructure consensus' obama is working (too slowly/undramatically for the times) to advance. if california is any indication even state legislatures w/ the luxury of huge dem majorities and not-all-that-bad dem brass have trouble in the pr fight against willful dumbitude from the top and it would be nice if the republican state gov't class got some pushback from on high and felt more pressure to explain themselves in real terms. other than that redistricting is the only thing that keeps me up at night, i do have a feeling we're gonna see more agile message game from the white house. would be nice to expect that after 2 yrs in office cant even front on that front...
― bounding (tremendoid), Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:32 (fifteen years ago)
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, November 6, 2010 9:26 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
did he
― holy lolson (deej), Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:33 (fifteen years ago)
i don't think that any mass transit system can run for a profit AND usefully serve the public. i could be wrong about that though i don't think so (i.e., there has to be a reason why public transportation agencies are quasi-government operations at least here in the NJ/NY/PA area). perhaps someone should ask any of the British ILXors how well the privitization of BritRail has gone (i suspect that it hasn't).
and while i don't know what the story is in IL and WI, at least here in NJ our GOP governor's rationale for cutting out the tunnel to/from NYC is strictly budgetary and he plans to chop away even more at government spending (i.e., he's announced he may lay off +10K NJ gov't workers beginning next year).
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:35 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, of all the lobbyists parading in/out of Trenton BigOil usually isn't among them.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:36 (fifteen years ago)
sure they can (tokyo's the most common example)
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:37 (fifteen years ago)
but america's been completely developed for the car, continues to subsidize roads everywhere, has a shitty transit infrastructure and stupid zoning laws everywhere etc. when it's cheaper to drive than to take a bus then yeah, it's pretty hard to make money as a bus company. but it shouldn't be cheaper to drive than to take a bus.
if you were to wipe out NYC's MTA contracts and made it a private business that could set fees however it wanted, I'm sure it could operate without gov't money.
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:43 (fifteen years ago)
at least here in NJ our GOP governor's rationale for cutting out the tunnel to/from NYC is strictly budgetary and he plans to chop away even more at government spendin
hadn't nj just secured more gov't money for it on top of the gov't money it already got though? and from the white house's disappointment i wager there was more to be extracted, if needed; you know better obv. my impression was the gov. just didn't want to be sold on it
― bounding (tremendoid), Sunday, 7 November 2010 02:51 (fifteen years ago)
that could set fees however it wanted
ill just say right now that i dont think anyone in chicago, after the parking meter debacle, would ever be in favor of letting this happen
― holy lolson (deej), Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
well if it wiped out its labor contracts and didn't have to deal w/ legacy costs, like if it just had the current infrastructure and you had to make a business out of that, it could do fine without raising fees. would cut lots of bus lines, I'd guess. anyway, not that it should be private, that'd be a very bad thing, but it *could* make money if that were the goal. (it doesn't and it shouldn't be.)
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:33 (fifteen years ago)
or 'societal costs' should be better codified, accounted for, and/or otherwise communicated
― bounding (tremendoid), Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:36 (fifteen years ago)
but that's already a pillar of the '1000 year plan' iirc
― bounding (tremendoid), Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:39 (fifteen years ago)
yes, he did.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:40 (fifteen years ago)
he did again, late in the health-care debate, e.g., the "summit," where -- in response to eric cantor's comment about the cost of health-care under obama's plan, obama cooly said, "well, i'm sure we could lower the price of food tomorrow, by eliminating laws requiring meat inspectors."
it's obama's type of rhetorical aggression, but it is aggression, and it works.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:42 (fifteen years ago)
but that's the thing, nyc has the infrastructure and density and (in most parts of nyc) driving is expensive and a hassle. the idea that a transit system in america should be breaking even in any environment but that is ridiculous. transit systems should be even less profitable in most places! the fact that poor people don't have to pay 100% of the costs of them getting on the bus isn't a bad thing, esp when middle class people are paying a very small % of the cost of them using a highway.
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 03:43 (fifteen years ago)
links very much in character - greenwald otm
http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-greenwald-and-lawrence-odonnell-battle-over-midterm-message/
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Sunday, 7 November 2010 06:03 (fifteen years ago)
haha odonnell gettin his neb on at the end there
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Sunday, 7 November 2010 06:06 (fifteen years ago)
does greenwald have a blended haircut?
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Sunday, 7 November 2010 07:24 (fifteen years ago)
Phil D., thank you so much for that link you posted here.
― naus, Sunday, 7 November 2010 07:33 (fifteen years ago)
lol I see deej did a little stfu-you-obama-hating-morons hardmanning before turning in
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:21 (fifteen years ago)
i found deej's "did he?" question to me to be thoughtful and polite; thank you deej.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:32 (fifteen years ago)
lol ok I take it back, it looked like sarcasm to me
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:34 (fifteen years ago)
no problem i have a highly-developed radar for sarcasm and i can assure you deej was being 122% genuine.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:35 (fifteen years ago)
Can we just move on
The NY Times dreams of a logical approach on Bush-era tax cuts
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07sun1.html?hp
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:35 (fifteen years ago)
Dubya will appear at our book fair next week.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:37 (fifteen years ago)
seriously?
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 14:38 (fifteen years ago)
might be interesting.
perhaps someone should ask any of the British ILXors how well the privitization of BritRail has gone (i suspect that it hasn't).
it's been a catastrophe - runaway prices AND reduction in capacity; fragmentation into franchises has equalled the death of long-term planning and "hilarious" miscommunication about everything
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 7 November 2010 15:48 (fifteen years ago)
laffing pretty hard at your tax dollars at work
Urged on by government warnings about saturated fat, Americans have been moving toward low-fat milk for decades, leaving a surplus of whole milk and milk fat. Yet the government, through Dairy Management, is engaged in an effort to find ways to get dairy back into Americans’ diets, primarily through cheese.
Americans now eat an average of 33 pounds of cheese a year, nearly triple the 1970 rate. Cheese has become the largest source of saturated fat; an ounce of many cheeses contains as much saturated fat as a glass of whole milk.
When Michelle Obama implored restaurateurs in September to help fight obesity, she cited the proliferation of cheeseburgers and macaroni and cheese. “I want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options,” she told the National Restaurant Association’s annual meeting.
But in a series of confidential agreements approved by agriculture secretaries in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Dairy Management has worked with restaurants to expand their menus with cheese-laden products.
Consider the Taco Bell steak quesadilla, with cheddar, pepper jack, mozzarella and a creamy sauce. “The item used an average of eight times more cheese than other items on their menu,” the Agriculture Department said in a report, extolling Dairy Management’s work — without mentioning that the quesadilla has more than three-quarters of the daily recommended level of saturated fat and sodium.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 15:59 (fifteen years ago)
ordering pizza now tbh.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:05 (fifteen years ago)
just trying to stimulate the economy ffs.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
I could subsist on cheese and red wine.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
If the Americans would mimic the French in coupling subsistence on cheese & wine with a robust public transportation system with lots of stairs needing climbing, then I think I'd applaud the government's efforts.
― Euler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:09 (fifteen years ago)
We need a tax credit for cheese and red wine.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:11 (fifteen years ago)
one of the many reasons I'm trying to move to France
― Euler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:16 (fifteen years ago)
cos in the USA we'd just end up subsidizing the mega quesadilla or whatever
― Euler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:17 (fifteen years ago)
on the other hand if we could get the corn & cheese industries together to subsidize quesadillas like they have in Mexico (or even in south Texas), not the silly flour tortilla versions endemic to American chain restaurants these days, then maybe I'd applaud American food lobbying as well
― Euler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:20 (fifteen years ago)
euler's idea could, I believe, usher in a new era of true bipartisanship.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:25 (fifteen years ago)
eat the Mexican quesadillas here so we don't have to eat them in Mexico...thinking this can be spun into something xenophobic though I'm not seeing it right now
― Euler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
subsidizing the mega quesadilla would make it really hard for me to move out of america tbh
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:45 (fifteen years ago)
What's funny about O'Donnell bashing 'anti-Obama' lefties for the Dems' defeat is that he first popped up on my radar (as I can't stand The West Wing and don't follow Dem bureaucrats) in the Ralph Nader documentary film An Unreasonable Man, where he appears and says (paraphrasing) "You can't demonstrate your value to a political party unless you're willing to vote against them."
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
sentence is missing "and for republicans"
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
^^ post is missing dem politburo stamp of approval
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
If the Americans would mimic the French in coupling subsistence on cheese & wine with a robust public transportation system with lots of stairs needing climbing, then I think I'd applaud the government's efforts.― Euler, Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:09 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
― Euler, Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:09 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
you've been mimicking the french unemployment rate p successfully
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 7 November 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
Working towards the dream of becoming a nation of fart suppression.
― Gukbe, Sunday, 7 November 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
let them eat merkts' port wine cheese spread
― kamerad, Sunday, 7 November 2010 20:13 (fifteen years ago)
re the whole cheese thing:
it's been pretty common knowledge that the dairy industry has been doing stuff like this for a while. no adult needs three servings of dairy in a single day. just sayin, and this comes from someone who likes cheese quite a bit. (the other day, i made a sandwich with provolone, sriracha, onions, tomato, bacon and ham, and then fried it in bacon grease. i aint no health nut)
― Honey, I squirted jizz all over the baby (the table is the table), Sunday, 7 November 2010 20:50 (fifteen years ago)
when a nation eats more cheese per capita than France, and the cheese they're eating isn't even French cheese, then that nation has a problem imo
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)
man oh man, you guys are laughing about 'the cheese thing'?
― cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
wisconsin cheese curds > french cheese
― kamerad, Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
Free cheese fr the poor of Ireland
― cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:01 (fifteen years ago)
I got a lotta love for wisconsin cheese curds but what you're saying here is like saying "wisconsin rap > NY rap"
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
wisconsin crap more like
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:06 (fifteen years ago)
"Iowa merengue > Dominican merengue"
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:09 (fifteen years ago)
The Irish cheese thing is unbelievable.
For anyone who hasn't clicked that link, the Republic of Ireland is giving every Irish citizen a FREE PIECE OF CHEESE.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 7 November 2010 21:19 (fifteen years ago)
wisconsin cheese curds > ny rap
― kamerad, Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:16 (fifteen years ago)
^^^ goes to show you what people who prefer wisconsin cheese curds to french cheese know about anything
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)
mc solaar > ny rap?
― kamerad, Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:24 (fifteen years ago)
mc solaar > wisconsin cheese curds
― iatee, Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:27 (fifteen years ago)
tax cuts = deficit reduction!
― kamerad, Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:28 (fifteen years ago)
man I won't be taking any grief any time soon from anybody who prefers cheese curds to illmatic
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:29 (fifteen years ago)
passing gas >>> nas
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:32 (fifteen years ago)
on an related note, if anyone wants to fund me, I'll liveblog my way through the Swiss Colony catalog cheese section, to evaluate USA vs. French cheese, especially if I also get the bonus petit fours.
― Euler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:55 (fifteen years ago)
cheese it, sez the feds
― bounding (tremendoid), Sunday, 7 November 2010 23:01 (fifteen years ago)
I've been reading the new Taibbi book, and it is a frightening read
― Mordy, Monday, 8 November 2010 14:13 (fifteen years ago)
It's nothing new on the rhetorical front (really very little beyond the same narratives Thomas Frank or Joe Bageant have put out) but just reading about the years of total economic nihilism makes me feel completely alienated from governance/the communal/the economic in brand new debilitating ways.
― Mordy, Monday, 8 November 2010 14:16 (fifteen years ago)
i didn't realize it was out yet. i'll get it this weekend. thanks.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 14:43 (fifteen years ago)
Then watch Inside Job, which inspired more audience hissing and raspberrying than I've heard in years.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 14:44 (fifteen years ago)
― iatee, Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:53 AM
yes, always remember the Dems are preternaturally entitled to your vote, you are but a vessel.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:12 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know where else to register this, but I think the thing that most immediately bummed me out about this election was the fact that WI gov elect Walker ran on a campaign promise to kill the high speed rail between Mad and MKE (and eventually MPLS/St P). esp since it would create jobs, pay for itself (many years down the line), stimulate the growth of the upper Midwest etc etc
and would cost less than the weekly operating budget of our two wars
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:25 (fifteen years ago)
it's ridiculous that chicago, milwaukee, minneapolis, and madison aren't all connected on a high speed rail line. there's a good 15 million people and some pretty important businesses that would be served, but no, we cannot invest, because we need to keep taxes low enough for the rich feel okay about life
― kamerad, Monday, 8 November 2010 15:29 (fifteen years ago)
like, more so than even healthcare and social programs, huge infrastructural projects is what govt is ~for~ right?
and now apparently the light rail projects in the twin cities have been threatened, now that the dude up north got voted out. like I "get" why right wingers don't like social programs (lol poor ppl) but hating transportation initiatives that chambers of commerce get boners for is just crazy.
it'd be like an idiot progressive college student saying we should get rid of the GI bill because it somehow encourages ppl to support wars of foreign aggression. or something.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:31 (fifteen years ago)
we're in a cold civil war. anything the left is for, the right opposes, regardless of practicality. now that we have no credible external enemy, the sights of atavistic ire are trained on, well, trains and things like that, for no other reason than it pisses off libs
― kamerad, Monday, 8 November 2010 15:39 (fifteen years ago)
To be fair, Walker ran on a promise to use the money on highway projects instead -- i.e. his campaign wasn't "we don't want federal money paying Wisconsin residents to work on infrastructure projects in Wisconsin."
The problem is that he of course has no way to keep this promise. The money is earmarked for the train. And if there were $800 billion of highway projects ready to employ people here, the fed gov would already be funding them; it seems like half the asphalt in the state is already being repaired with ARRA money.
It would certainly be better to build an eight-lane highway to nowhere in northern Wisconsin than not to spend the money at all. So if that's the outcome, so be it, and the next Dem gov candidate can run against it as a symbol of Republican waste.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:47 (fifteen years ago)
wish this wasn't true, but I think yr kinda otm. while I normally think that avg ppl are pretty willing to compromise, lately it seems like much of the electorate opposes rail/energy projs/"green" tech just because its "lefty".
I blame hippies, obv
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:47 (fifteen years ago)
To be fair, Walker ran on a promise to use the money on highway projects instead -- i.e. his campaign wasn't "we don't want federal money paying Wisconsin residents to work on infrastructure projects in Wisconsin."The problem is that he of course has no way to keep this promise. The money is earmarked for the train. And if there were $800 billion of highway projects ready to employ people here, the fed gov would already be funding them; it seems like half the asphalt in the state is already being repaired with ARRA money. It would certainly be better to build an eight-lane highway to nowhere in northern Wisconsin than not to spend the money at all. So if that's the outcome, so be it, and the next Dem gov candidate can run against it as a symbol of Republican waste.
ah ok! thx for the info---I am basically ignorant of most of the actual "facts" here.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:49 (fifteen years ago)
xp to kamerad: sure thing, which is why self-styled "small government" state legislators like Steve Nass try to keep cities from painting bike lanes on the streets; local control is all well and good, but bicycles smell like liberals.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:50 (fifteen years ago)
Were they hissing the film's villians or the film itself? I was excited to see this, then read the local weekly's review that said it was weakly imitative of Moore. Did you like it?
― clemenza, Monday, 8 November 2010 15:50 (fifteen years ago)
Irish cheddar is quite good.
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:55 (fifteen years ago)
Were they hissing the film's villians or the film itself? I was excited to see this, then read the local weekly's review that said it was weakly imitative of Moore
Hissing the villains. Moore's film is pathetic.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)
I mean, the guy had no comprehension of what he was attacking.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 16:00 (fifteen years ago)
Thanks...I assume you mean Moore's film about capitalism, and that you thought Inside Job was much better. (I think the reviewer meant imitative of Moore in general.)
― clemenza, Monday, 8 November 2010 16:08 (fifteen years ago)
Actually, it's as far removed from Moore's tone and style as you can imagine.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 16:19 (fifteen years ago)
Eh....I'd be more inclined to think we're in a cold civil war if the Left was actually pushing extremely different agendas than the Right. The Left in this country is more or less a Right that is more marketable to population-dense areas. Especially taking into account actual policy and not campaign slogans/platforms. Both are for the war, both are against prosecution of US war crimes, both are for the surveillance state, both are in the hands of Wall Street, and currently both seem to be feeding off Obamaphobia.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
Both parties also don't mind perpetuating anti-social welfare capitalist propaganda, and neither party is doing jack squat for immigration reform & gay rights.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
The 'civil war' meme is not real, just MORE AT ELEVEN news sensationalism.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:01 (fifteen years ago)
man youre a horrible poster
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:05 (fifteen years ago)
cant believe u earnestly posted a 'the political parties are basically the same maaan' challop
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:06 (fifteen years ago)
Now, if someone were to say "conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are basically the same," then we're getting somewhere.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 8 November 2010 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
So deej you think they are different enough to warrant the 'civil war' tag?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:14 (fifteen years ago)
They're different: one is run by bullies, the other by wimps.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:14 (fifteen years ago)
Also you can back up 'youre a horrible poster' with some actual evidence as to what makes me a horrible poster.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:15 (fifteen years ago)
Um, the 'cold civil war' is just the culture wars reheated, plus black President - so many of the crypto-racists I know do the 'I'm an independent voter' dodge while exercising their historic entitlement to pretend they're some sort of overseer class for those uppity brown and black people.
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:15 (fifteen years ago)
Changing subjects, that NC anti-abortion wanted poster stuff is some scary bullshit. I can only imagine the current supreme court agreeing to take the case (the previous court did not, I think) and finding some way to justify distributing posters of abortion-providing doctors, with their picture and home address displayed, and somehow claiming that does not constitute a threat and falls under the umbrella of common free speech.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 8 November 2010 18:16 (fifteen years ago)
we're in a cold civil war. anything the left is for, the right opposes, regardless of practicality.
this is nonsense.
― Kerm, Monday, 8 November 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)
― kamerad, Monday, November 8, 2010 9:39 AM (2 hours ago)
I agree with this.
― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
It's so corny!
― Kerm, Monday, 8 November 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)
I live in one of the corniest places on earth and see it a lot.
― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)
still not sure who "the Left" is, AdamB. If you mean MoveOn/Olbermann/Maddow-type Democrats, well, you better be ready to argue if you call Obama an enemy of progressivism around them.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)
I think you're wrong about Maddow, Morbs. She's definitely in the Greenwald camp.
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)
the guy who will ride for anybody with a D my his name no matter what that politician does doesn't really get to accuse anybody else of challops imo
unless it's like "I am the king of challenging opinions so I am best fit to define them," in that case OK
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 18:47 (fifteen years ago)
oh yeah. this argument isn't boring yet.
― Mordy, Monday, 8 November 2010 18:50 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw i dont??
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:06 (fifteen years ago)
It's important to periodically update the Political Party X Is Just Like Political Party Y challop with new policy measures. I offer DADT and the failure of any post-BP oil spill environmental bills. Plus I think it's useful since the recent Republican Landslide tends to get blamed for the absurd narrative that the Left is far too liberal.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:08 (fifteen years ago)
Obviously there are important differences in policy ideals (mostly social issues/civil rights) but IMO the difference tends to get exaggerated to the detriment of useful issue-based political discourse.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
the dems are obv not in favor of dadt
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:13 (fifteen years ago)
They're also "in favor of" campaign finance reform, they just choose to do nothing about it
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)
oh my god you guys
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)
i kind of like this idea of a 'cold civil war' but as far as it IS happening, it's at the level of populations. the parties fighting is sort of the icing on the cake, and what they are there to do.
i think in general we need to get comfortable with extreme polarization, because it's not going anywhere. appeals to greater reason or national unity or just basic politeness seem dead in the water. especially for your educated technocratic or historically-minded liberal types, asking everyone to "calm down and see reason" is basically saying, "hey, can you just let me win this one for now, thx?"
the one sympathy i have for rahm-style politics is, at a certain point you do just have to win. otherwise, what?
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:24 (fifteen years ago)
otherwise the reps voting for stasis are Republicans instead of Blue Dogs.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:32 (fifteen years ago)
what does the word "one" mean to you?
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
Let me try to get Bill James to sort all this out for you.
― clemenza, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:41 (fifteen years ago)
otherwise, what?
the question I wish more people would ask in earnest
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:42 (fifteen years ago)
This two-Americas nonsense I thought was put to bed after Kerry lost.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
my answer is: we saw well enough last tuesday
elections aren't the beginning and the end of anything tho, just one part of everything ongoing. it all matters.
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
that was Edwards, I believe
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:45 (fifteen years ago)
real Republicans beat fake Republicans most times, huh
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:46 (fifteen years ago)
meanwhile, W is back!
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:46 (fifteen years ago)
man I say with sincerity that I am stoked the glass looks half full in an "it all matters" way to you
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:47 (fifteen years ago)
i think the "dems are as bad repubs" argument just sort of misses the point. we know the republicans are terrible. it is possible to believe that they are terrible, and also think the democrats, while not as terrible, are also pretty bad, as an institutional entity. i mean, at least if you're of a generally liberal/"progressive"/democratic-socialist/whatever-the-hell bent. if you're a liberal, the democrats make it very clear that they are not really "your" party. republican candidates in primaries all over the country are falling all over each other arguing over who's more "conservative." you don't really get that from the democrats, even in primaries. there's not a lot of "i'm the real liberal in this race" or "i'm the real progressive." so it would be stupid for liberals or progressives to spend too much time depending on or defending democrats. we can vote for them as a defensive move, at least for as long as we can stomach it, but mostly that's all the identifying we need to do with them.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:47 (fifteen years ago)
^^^otm
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:53 (fifteen years ago)
I just...it pisses me off to get an "oh my god you guys" from max while this
is going to just go unchecked unless one of us unhinged types asks: really? so where the fuck were they on this q from 1994-2010? for sixteen fuckin' years? keepin real quiet waiting for somebody with a nutsack to come along, that's where. and it wasn't even any of them. it was a courtroom. and the party isn't going to go to bat for the repeal. I don't know about you (OK yes I do) but for me "I oppose it and am in a position to do something about it but I refuse to because hey I might not succeed and it might cost me" doesn't really differ substantively from "I'm for it."
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 19:56 (fifteen years ago)
was reading that Texas is gonna consider dropping Medicaid for its citizens. I mean, this is the future of USA conservatism, right? repealing the New Deal/Great Society under the auspices of states' rights, and who amongst us is gonna fight for them? If it's a state's issue, then it's only Texans' fight, & based on how Texas votes, I think the right there is pretty sure they're gonna win that fight. More generally, this is a good strategy for the right: by trying to out-maneuver national solidarity, they decrease the chances that there's gonna be enough organization to fight back.
― Euler, Monday, 8 November 2010 19:57 (fifteen years ago)
The whole "states' rights" motive for getting rid of progressive/New Deal legislation and programmes is also part of the cold civil war.
― "good luck, sycophants!" (suzy), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:00 (fifteen years ago)
john "you guys" was directed to "you guyS" not just "you"
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:00 (fifteen years ago)
DADT, torture, FISA compromises, DOMA – the Dems have been less than worthless.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:00 (fifteen years ago)
lol I assumed the guys were me & Dr. Morbius, the other guy who tends to hear things the way I do
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:01 (fifteen years ago)
i have no desire to read the same argument about democrats on this thread ever again from anyone
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)
Alfred, remember, sure they did a lot of bad stuff - but they also blocked the importation of generic drugs for patients who need them - gotta focus on the positive
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)
Some context for the strange goings-on in Texas.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:04 (fifteen years ago)
also passed health care
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
THE DEMS HAVE DONE NOTHING
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Monday, November 8, 2010 1:47 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
bcuz liberals are falling over themselves to distance themselves from a party they should be pushing left internally instead of continually rejecting
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:06 (fifteen years ago)
stop stop stop stop stop stop
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:06 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, please don't get me started on fucksticks like the MN Taxpayers League. They are responsible for stuff like this:
Here's the latest from the Taxpayers League of Minnesota: Trash the bus system and use the money saved to buy used cars for the poor.
"Transit is a bad deal for the taxpayers," the Taxpayers League said in its newest missive to media outlets. "... Why keep lower-income folks dependent upon an inefficient bus system when we can open up the job market of the entire Twin Cities to them through automobiles?"
How many used cars does the Taxpayers League have in mind?
"Let's say we spend $5,000" per used car, said David Strom, president of the league. "We could buy 44,000 used cars for what we spend on transit."
Transit's a waste, the league claims.
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:07 (fifteen years ago)
lol max are you repping for the moderates itt.
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
BOTH sides do it!
I JUST WANT IT TO STOP
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:09 (fifteen years ago)
deej, we could go back to ship's thread and argue about The-Dream.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:11 (fifteen years ago)
i don't even know how to begin making fun of this
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:11 (fifteen years ago)
oh wait, is that from 2004?
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:12 (fifteen years ago)
max maybe this isn't the thread for you? like this is the thread for 1) lols about how politics are stupid and 2) entrenched parties articulating their positions ad infinitum? just sayin
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:15 (fifteen years ago)
(x-post) 2003, but their arguments haven't gotten any less ridiculous.
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:15 (fifteen years ago)
tough shit, AMERIKANSKI
― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:17 (fifteen years ago)
OMG U GUYS
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:21 (fifteen years ago)
suggest bans are the only real democracy we have in this world
― meta machine music (crüt), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:23 (fifteen years ago)
xp - They passed a shitty health care bill thats going to be dismantled before it even goes online. I bet you any amount of money the exchanges will never ever actually happen.
― The Porcupine Captain With A Crew of White Rabbits (Viceroy), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:24 (fifteen years ago)
look @ bright side - at least the bill that won't get enacted had lots of compromises in it
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:27 (fifteen years ago)
i think the story of the next two years will be defending the HCR and banking reform bills. gonna be lots of fun.
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:29 (fifteen years ago)
something I hear a lot from young-ish people is: fuck Social Security, cos it won't be solvent by the time we're supposed to get it. I suspect something similar is going on re. health care reform: by the time we're old the rich'll have fucked us out of that, so why fight for it now? Keep in mind these aren't in general poor people, though income-wise they are (student types, newly employed with lots of loans, etc.)
whereas more libertarian-ish friendly issues like wiretapping and gay rights seem more important
This is all anecdotal bullshit of course, it's how I roll.
iow if Obama's policies continue the way they've been, I don't expect young-ish people to care much about his campaign in 2012 (or that of any other Dem candidate)
― Euler, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:34 (fifteen years ago)
if Democratic policies continue the way they've been, the only people who are going to care about the Dem campaign in 2012 are people who were going to support said campaign no matter what
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:37 (fifteen years ago)
i.e. most of this thread?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
haha are you guys for real?? i cant even tell any more. health care is a big deal sorry he isnt also juggling chevys guys
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:45 (fifteen years ago)
sorry he isnt also juggling chevys guys
nobody working variants of this schtick gets to complain that anybody else is recycling material imo
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:46 (fifteen years ago)
he kind of did juggle chevys i guess, in the sense of making american auto companies solvent
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:48 (fifteen years ago)
yeah you're right he's incredible, the democrats are incredible, what are us dumb fucks thinking? we should try to be grateful
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, November 8, 2010 2:21 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
how is this NOT omg?
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:52 (fifteen years ago)
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, November 8, 2010 2:51 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark
yeah "the sky isnt falling" = OBAMA IS INCREDIBLE
sersly dude the "these people want miracles!" thing has successfully alienated people who once voted and donated Democratic -- it's done its work & rooted out the infidels, leaving you with a nice pure ineffective party -- you can give the whole deal a rest now
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
can i just make one observation? thats maybe been made on these threads before? one thing that might help bridge the gap between these positions, such as they are, is noting that this isnt just a disagreement about obama and his policies specifically, but also a more general disagreement about the way politics "works"? as in, some people put a lot of faith in the power of individual actors (even in the context of their membership in larger groups!) to effect change, whereas others take a um 'institutional' view that places institutions, institutional inertia, institutional procedure, etc. at the heart of the political process. does that make sense? i mean it just seems like this argument isnt going to get anywhere because its not really about obama as such, its about--is the villain democrats? or is it the constitution? (the answer is both! but id say one is a much bigger villain!)
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
this thread is boring. I'm bored now.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
after changes upon changes we are more or less the same
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
I thought the villains were the cheese companies and the Dept. of Agriculture, but really it's whoever foisted Colby cheese onto the American public.
― Euler, Monday, 8 November 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
there's a lot of disagreement in these threads about exactly how much moral weight there is in your vote, too. what is it, exactly, to vote for someone?
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:01 (fifteen years ago)
http://i56.tinypic.com/wwadkz.jpg
― Euler, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
look max. nobody on the anti-institutional side is actually specifically focused on obama; that's the claim made by people who're v. pro-Democratic make, but it isn't actually true. we complain about specific obama policies as instances of broader problems within the system, and people then characterize us as unduly focused on the president -- as if the same morbs-and-aeros weren't just as outraged under bush before him, and clinton before that, and bush i before that, etc. it doesn't really have much to do with the president. but there's room for dissatisfaction with both system and state-sponsored actor here. I'm unhappy with the way politics "works," and as a specific instance, I also think the president and his party have worked politics atrociously the past two years. in the present case, the prevent-defense strategy of HEALTH CARE IS IMPORTANT! offensively & shamefully ignores what the Democrats conceded on a bill (which probably won't even go into effect) even as its concessions (in particular, the national discourse in re: the right to choose; trends toward importing v. v. important, lifesaving medications for patients who need them & can't afford them) will have taken their toll on progress all the same
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:07 (fifteen years ago)
on a brighter note
hey andrew shirvell
http://www.jpouch.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fired.jpg
you're fired
― J0rdan S., Monday, 8 November 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
well that is good news.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:09 (fifteen years ago)
well so i guess my question is, why focus so much of that unhappiness on obama and the democrats, and not on, say, the mechanisms of the senate, first-past-the-post voting, etc? is it just cause you like getting in arguments with deej and iatee?
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:14 (fifteen years ago)
lol max given that the position of most Democrats (and Republicans), including the above-named (see their ongoing demonization of any third-party support/hopes/talk) is that the system is essentially unchangeable and that any hope of working outside/past/beyond it are vain, you're proposing the exchange one pointless line of argument for an even more pointless line of argument
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:17 (fifteen years ago)
(see their ongoing demonization of any third-party support/hopes/talk)
see comments like this make it look like you really DON'T grasp the institutional nature of the problem
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
right exactly--its like, i say "first-past-the-post voting" and instead of hearing "significant institutional obstacle to multi-pary political systems" you hear "DONT YOU DARE VOTE THIRD PARTY"
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
when I hear "the problem is institutional" as a mechanism for deflecting blame from actors within the institution I wanna borrow a look from my friend max:
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
institutions sucking/actors within those institutions sucking are not mutually exclusive
that being said, there are major, basic design-level barriers to a multi-party system in this country and barring a civil war/re-writing of the Constitution, those barriers are not going to be removed
I look forward to your successful campaign for a new constitutional convention btw
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:28 (fifteen years ago)
(I say this as someone who does not regret voting for Nader in '96 and '00 - but I bore no illusions that those were essentially empty gestures)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
i've never seen even an ATTEMPT at explaining how a third or fourth party would work in this country, who would vote for it, which races they ought to contest, federal or state, how are governing mandates to work since we don't have post-election coalition-building in this country.
nor have i ever seen an argument that other countries that do have multi-party representation have significantly better government or policy. the social model successes in europe were built in more-or-less dualist systems anyway. taking them apart seems to be a multi-party affair, recently, tho...
in an american context, the whole thing is a chimera and a fantasy, it's got therapeutic value and absolutely nothing else. and i'll sit here and demonize them all the live long day
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
I'm a lot more interested in knowing what the alleged voting constituency is for a war on poverty in the USA.
― Euler, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
i actually think the working families party is a pretty good model for a "successful" third party in the US! i never feel like im "wasting" my vote, but i also know that im supporting a party more left-wing than the democrats. of course you need the NY system with cross-endorsements.
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:33 (fifteen years ago)
though, i dunno, maybe WFP doesnt really "count" as a third party--more like a weird kind of interest group
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:34 (fifteen years ago)
nor have i ever seen an argument that other countries that do have multi-party representation have significantly better government or policy.
I wouldn't say they uniformly have better policies (hello, Israel) but I do think they are more representative of their respective constituencies, and that counts for a lot in my book.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
I voted for two Dems last Tuesday, state AG and comptroller, and deliberately voted for them on the Dem line rather than the WFP, with their stepchild status, lousy name, and Matt Damon video emails.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
haha!
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
saying why a third party might be great is way, way easier (and much less useful) than going into "how a third or fourth party would work in this country, who would vote for it, which races they ought to contest, federal or state, how are governing mandates to work since we don't have post-election coalition-building in this country."
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
how a third or fourth party would work in this country
don't stop until you get a sixth party.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:02 (fifteen years ago)
Remember the Whigs
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:07 (fifteen years ago)
i'm actually old enough to remember them.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:07 (fifteen years ago)
i'm actually one of them
― markers, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:17 (fifteen years ago)
i'm actually
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:20 (fifteen years ago)
http://images.uulyrics.com/cover/p/pet-shop-boys/album-actually.jpg
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:21 (fifteen years ago)
this is the first i've run into these terms! crazy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_Systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Party_Systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_Systemetc
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:21 (fifteen years ago)
btw here's an excellent example of our lobotomized political culture.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)
RIP the Era of Good Feelings
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)
who could possibly object to good feelings, i mean, it's crazy
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:24 (fifteen years ago)
RIP James Monroe?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:25 (fifteen years ago)
omg he's dead?
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:29 (fifteen years ago)
rip
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
― Princess TamTam, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
xp I think the third party is most effeective as a grassroots way to instill change in the dominant party's platforms, much like the Tea Party, but withiout instead of within.* My assumption is that if enough ppl had the guts to vote for theGreen Party they wouldn't necessarily be the 'third party', but instead would end up replacing the Dems. The fact that almost all Dems would never even consider voting for a third party, no matter how dissatisfied they are with the Dems, is indicative of a much wider cynicism & defeated opragmatism inherent in today's liberalism which manages to get in the way of the loads of good that is the Dems' purpose to do in the world. Which is, I think, aerosmith's main frustration with that sort of logic.
*my impression is that the Tea Party is the result of the left-over interest generated by Ron Paul's campaign to become the Repubblican nominee for President on a hard-line Libertarian platform...am I right on this?
― only! assholes! write on doors! (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
(whoops lots of misspells)
― only! assholes! write on doors! (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:42 (fifteen years ago)
The fact that almost all Dems would never even consider voting for a third party, no matter how dissatisfied they are with the Dems, is indicative of a much wider cynicism & defeated sensible pragmatism inherent in today's liberalism...
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
You're generally right. No differences exist between the Tea Party and Republicans except the latter will smile and hold the door while they bore you with idiotic twaddle.
XP
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
but "no matter how dissatisfied they are with the Dems" leaves a lot of room for interpretation
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
Reading about the scams that the financial industry pulled that led this recession makes me so angry I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
― Mordy, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:48 (fifteen years ago)
(Futurama joke not suicide call for help FYI)
― Mordy, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:49 (fifteen years ago)
there is no suitable alternative.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:49 (fifteen years ago)
ah.
Seriously angry tho. The shot they were pulling is fucking psychopathic. I wouldn't be friends with someone who I knew was apart of this
― Mordy, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:51 (fifteen years ago)
Shit*-- fuck autocorrect
quite a popular idea again
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bne3zd8-guks3mmsqt1r_q.gif
― zvookster, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:52 (fifteen years ago)
people don't know what they want.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)
And business leaders, even the few who continue to be Obama-friendly, say they are convinced he is hostile to free markets and the private sector. Some of these executives have balance sheets flush with cash but are reluctant to add jobs or expand in part because they don't trust Obama’s instincts for growth.
“He used anti-corporate, confrontational rhetoric too for legislative gain and kept doing it after folks found it gratuitous,” a top executive said. “During health reform, it was the bad, evil hospitals. . . Same with financial regulation: It was fat cats, greed, corruption.”
Wah wah wah.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)
Worse, they haven't been given the tools to clearly identify the actual problem.
― kenan, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:54 (fifteen years ago)
― only! assholes! write on doors! (Drugs A. Money), Monday, November 8, 2010 2:41 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
yes and no. i mean i think that's true in part, but the tea party has deeper roots than that. from the modernism thread that was briefly active a couple hours ago:
what momus says upthread interestingly echoed, in part, here: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi05/rubin.htm (Lillian B. Rubin's "why don't they listen to us"). the relevant excerpt:
A decade ago, I wrote about the emerging movement of European-American clubs and warned that in these groups we could see "the outlines of things to come" (Families on the Fault Line). The clubs themselves faded away, but the consciousness of self as "other," an idea that had been alien to whites of any class until identity politics came to dominate political life, took root and evolved into what we see today: America's white working and lower-middle class claiming for itself the status of another aggrieved group, only this time the largest in the land. And unlike earlier working-class movements of discontent, it isn't the bosses or the corporations or even the government that are the target of their anger, it's us, "the liberal elite."
i mean, that's a five-year-old exchange, coming three years before paul's second presidential run in 2008. and prescient as hell. focusing american working-class anger on the intellectual "elites" that supposedly rule them (and away from the corporate elite that actually do) has been republican strategy for quite a long time, and the tea party is just its final flowering. god, hopefully "final" flowering...
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:55 (fifteen years ago)
people don't know what they want.___________________________Worse, they haven't been given the tools to clearly identify the actual problem.
___________________________
agreed. worse, it's behooves large institutions to encourage ignorance, belligerence, and bewilderment.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:56 (fifteen years ago)
^ needs editing. for instance: "focusing white american working and middle-class anger...", "...corporate elite that actually does."
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
xpost i mean
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:58 (fifteen years ago)
i'm sure i need editing, too.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 8 November 2010 22:58 (fifteen years ago)
so does Rand Paul.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
i think that way overstates the degree to which the tea-partiers, and the GOP voter base in general, is "working class"
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
^I would agree with that.
xpost to Dorianlynskey there's something to this though...it seems that every time HCR seemed v. likely, the stock market would plunge.
What's up with that?
― only! assholes! write on doors! (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:03 (fifteen years ago)
Pissed plutocrats.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:04 (fifteen years ago)
this is a little old now but it's not a bad breakdown, to an extent
http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=114
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
i think a lot of the "poor" people that vote for the GOP are old people: "artificially" poor as the income numbers go, because their incomes are fixed. but that's a guess.
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:06 (fifteen years ago)
― goole, Monday, November 8, 2010 2:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
i don't think that it does. "working class" is one of those slippery phrases that means different things to different people. there's no official income cutoff. suspect that the majority of the republican base at least consider themselves working class. hell, about 75% of american households make less than $75k a year, and a good many of those are dual income. unless most of your supporters are working class, it's all but impossible to be elected in america.
it's a liberal fantasy that tea partiers = old, high-income racist kooks. they may skew slightly that way, but most are still working class.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:07 (fifteen years ago)
oh good this argument again
― max, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:08 (fifteen years ago)
yeah we had this whole argument on the pulp thread i think, of all places. and you were totally wrong there iirc.
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:09 (fifteen years ago)
before we all get too randy about third parties holding actual power, just consider the probability - which i think is high - that any successful third party in the US would not be one that most people on this thread would want anywhere near the levers of government
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)
like, there's a reason russ feingold got beat and it's not because of institutional barriers to the greens being on the ballot
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:11 (fifteen years ago)
― goole, Monday, November 8, 2010 3:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
yeah, but old people can be working class, or not. the pew research breakdown you just posted shows that democrats dominate at the very lowest income level, and only hold an edge in the middle and lower-middle levels due to the fact that non-whites overwhelmingly favor democrats. working class whites, especially those who aren't flirting with poverty, are moving to the right.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:13 (fifteen years ago)
How are the two sentences connected?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:14 (fifteen years ago)
Feingold is a Democrat, just not one who often "bucked" his party.
not
speaking of the unions: I live in Michigan, and my district elected a rep last week who said in the Detroit Free Press not even a month ago that Obama should present Rush Limbaugh with a birth certificate or be impeached...okay, not huge news, but I'm from Michigan. Economic malaise aside, why are we even considering voting Republican? The same party that was making the auto industry, and esp. the UAW, out to be the scapegoats for the bank bailouts. The same party that were going to let two out of the big 3 fail just to screw the union, which would've sent our state into a spiralling vortex of pure awfulness...
And yet, I'm inclined to blame Dems, bcz I don't think they mentioned this in any of their ads. It was all jobs & mud. I don't get it.
― only! assholes! write on doors! (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:14 (fifteen years ago)
yup! (xp to tracer re: third parties)
contra your david broder/tom friedman pissant whining, the great untapped seam of opinion in the US is 'centrist' in exactly the opposite way they want. it's a combo of highly punitive on criminal & social matters, highly protective & populist on economics in a middle-american 50s kind of way, highly belligerent but simultaneously isolationist in world affairs. you poll those things and they are popular.
i think there's a name for it, even
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:16 (fifteen years ago)
― goole, Monday, November 8, 2010 3:09 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
think you mean you disagree? i mean, that "lower income quintile" where democrats still have a hold on white voters = households making less than $19k a year. that's like college students and very low income wage slaves, families making barely enough to keep a roof and feed the kids. hardly defines the american "working class".
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:18 (fifteen years ago)
no i mean you were and are totally wrong
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:18 (fifteen years ago)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, November 8, 2010 3:10 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark
OTM! like goole sez, it ain't the greens, it's ... something else
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:19 (fifteen years ago)
― goole, Monday, November 8, 2010 3:18 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark
oh come on, now you're just being a dick. i'm just going on the stats you posted. if you think there's something wrong with my interpretation, lemme know what it is. if not...
i mean, one of the big lessons of that pew study is that union members (obviously working class) still skew democratic, and that unions retain a great deal of political clout, but, according to the article: "a review of relevant data suggest that the age-old political axiom – Democrats are the party of the working class; Republicans are the party of the well-to-do – could stand a little updating."
from that same article:
"First, when it comes to explaining partisan affiliation, income is a relatively weak demographic indicator. It is only about half as important as church attendance, and just a third as important as race.
Second, even though there hasn't been much change since 1992 in party identification at the top and bottom of the income curve, there has been some significant pro-Republican movement in the middle. Indeed, among whites, Republicans now enjoy a clear edge over Democrats not just in the upper income brackets, but also in the middle bracket and have made gains even in the lower-middle income bracket."
this squares exactly with what i've been saying about the republican party and the tea partiers within it, especially considering that i started here by looking for the tea party's pre-2008 roots.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:25 (fifteen years ago)
you're right, i'm being a dick
what i've seen suggests that those active in the tea-party movement are older richer and whiter than even the GOP average
― goole, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:27 (fifteen years ago)
agree
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:32 (fifteen years ago)
interesting article, by the way. especially the bit about how union members have represented approx 25% of american voters for decades, despite the fact that union membership has declined steeply over the same period. interesting, but also unnerving. if the membership trends continue, that's gonna have to collapse at some point.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:37 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 November 2010 20:21 (1 hour ago)
Do you know anyone with a pre-existing condition, Morbz? Anyone who needs Medicare and/or Medicaid to survive?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:41 (fifteen years ago)
― The Porcupine Captain With A Crew of White Rabbits (Viceroy), Monday, November 8, 2010 8:24 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
It will only get dismantled if Republicans take the White House and the Senate in the next few years. Which of course would be tremendously assisted by the kind of defeatism you're embracing.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:42 (fifteen years ago)
― Euler, Monday, November 8, 2010 7:57 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
I disagree that this is a good political move for the Republicans in Texas. This would not only create tremendous budgetary chaos, but it would bring into stark relief the nature of Medicaid and how necessary it is. There are a lot of Republicans out there with kids who are only alive because of Medicaid, and this might be enough to make them Democrats for life.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:48 (fifteen years ago)
otm, I'm all for them attempting shit like that
― iatee, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
Most of this stuff is "signals" to their base.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
like Reagan wanting to abolish the Dept of Education.
while that's true, I think reagan's people were more composed than contemporary republicans
― iatee, Monday, 8 November 2010 23:53 (fifteen years ago)
Contemporary Republicans are Reagan's people.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 November 2010 23:58 (fifteen years ago)
^ this, and the move in texas to kill medicaid is a terribly misjudged "signal" to the republican electoral base, which as goole pointed out upthread, skews older. you stay in the good graces of your threatened, confused and angry supporters by not doing anything that's gonna make them specifically angry at you. if the GOP starts chipping away at the stuff that a lot of tea partiers actually depend on (medicare, medicaid, social security), then the whole strategy collapses.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:07 (fifteen years ago)
idk I think there's a difference between the GOP lifers (who do know better) and the palin/pauls (who might not)
― iatee, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:11 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, but the squawk back will, i imagine, will be fast and fierce, if they try to go through with it
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:20 (fifteen years ago)
RE: When polls find out that the old people that vote republican or are tea partiers are working class. I imagine you could make a large sample of old ppl seem far more working class by not counting SS as Income. Think this ever happens?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:30 (fifteen years ago)
can someone tell me why there's such a big movement on the left to work outside of the democratic party instead of trying to push the dem party leftward? is it because the dem party is perceived as unmoveable, like there are institutional barriers w/in the party itself? or is it because of the whole 'big tent' thing -- where if you agree w/ the broad liberal spectrum of causes that no matter what yr gonna be somewhat disappointed? why is the GOP better at absorbing the tea party -- is it just because the tea party is stupid?
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
Ronald Reagan:Barry Goldwater::Tea Partiers:Ron Paul
― Quesadilla Road Trip 2010 (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)
can the answer be "yes" to all of your questions xp
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:48 (fifteen years ago)
i think generally it would be more terrifying for the dem party if there really was a large, tea party style radical left, ex-dem movement pledging to stop voting for the dems than it would be if there was that amount of people trying to work from w/in the party where powerful institutionalized dems could control that kinda thing
i don't want to sound like kevin k here but that seems fairly obv to me
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)
sure, this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is definitely true.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:50 (fifteen years ago)
responding in my after-dinner friendly-and-satisfied aerosmith voice so adjust yr settings but yeah: I think the idea that people could push the dem party leftward is about as realistic as the idea of a third party and probably less so. will the party's ideology shift over time if the very broad public's does? yes it will. will it drift right when it's expedient to do so? no doubt. otherwise, I don't think me or 1,000,000 people like me participating at local levels will make any difference at all: unless one of us has very deep pockets and is donating to the nat'l party while making our priorities clearly known. That person can effect the party. people who aren't generate mass $$ can't, I don't think. I do not think the party cares what its supporters think unless they are rich, but I do think they have many mechanisms in place at the local-organizer level to make people believe that their voices might actually somehow count. those mechanisms are there because if people feel like they might be able to change the direction of the party, then they might also be willing to man the phones, etc.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:51 (fifteen years ago)
They gotta get over cravenness like this.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 00:58 (fifteen years ago)
― J0rdan S., Monday, November 8, 2010 6:49 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
but why is it different on the right??
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:00 (fifteen years ago)
― J0rdan S., Monday, November 8, 2010 6:48 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
so what are those barriers w/in the dem party, exactly?
because the right knows that risk is inherent in growth, and they've gotten really good at being the opposition party so if they miss an election or two while figuring out how to broaden the base, it's worth it to them
imo
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:01 (fifteen years ago)
it rhymes with "mineless cushies"
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:03 (fifteen years ago)
they ain't broadening their base.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:03 (fifteen years ago)
they're doubling-down.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, November 8, 2010 6:51 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
but isnt the leftward move on, say, gay rights, about a whole lot of activists taking a whole lot of very small-scale steps over & over & shifting the party leftward? has the dem's party's slow shift left on that issue been because we threatened to stop voting? or was it because the public's attitude shifted? why did the public's attitude shift? was it because we threatened to stop voting?
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, November 8, 2010 7:03 PM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
but how is that diff than the GOP? why is mark kirk forced to move right?
im not asking these questions because i think yall are wrong, per se. im sure that at some level, the knowledge that a huge block of dem supporters wont vote dem if they ignore gay rights is entering the calculus (as it should). im just wondering what *else* is going on here. why is this about public attitudes
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:06 (fifteen years ago)
i think aerosmith & i agree more often than we realize -- i mean, i side w/ greenwald in that televised argument that was posted upthread -- i wish they had run less moderate dems in some of those districts
i think my anger w/ the dem party for their 'poor tactics' & aerosmith's with their 'lack of principle' are kinda related -- imo, instead of coming up w/ worthwhile framing, decent marketing for their positions, they just buy into narratives arguing that they need to be moving to the center. (im speaking in BROAD terms right now. Overall party direction). its marketing/tactical laziness that drives these moves, rather than issues of principle, in how i look at it
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
i think you could argue that the party's slow embrace of gay rights has to do w/ opinions of the electorate that have nothing to do w/ the dem party -- i think you're arguing that the party is leading on issues? even tho it's clearly not
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:10 (fifteen years ago)
in fact, that is what i would argue
democrats do seem overly-defensive about their what they stand for.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:10 (fifteen years ago)
― J0rdan S., Monday, November 8, 2010 7:10 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
im certainly not arguing this
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
Nothing encapsulates the Dem's cravenness than the brief trepidation last week about nominating Pelosi as minority leader. McConnell and Boehner didn't change one fraction of an inch after the defeats of 2006 and 2008. Digby otm:
I would never advocate blindly following the tactics of the TeaGOP. But they are ahead of the Democrats in figuring out how to navigate this new political landscape (which they pretty much invented.) They don't fool themselves that there's consensus, they accept that we are polarized and that there will be frequent turnovers of power. And they plan accordingly.
Whether in the minority or the majority, they always work to move the country to the right. And by failing to understand the game they are playing, the Democrats end up moving with them. That's how Bob Dole's health care plan from 1996 became a communist takeover of the health care system in 2010.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/planning-for-future.html
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:16 (fifteen years ago)
this is fucked http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/rich-are-different-from-you-and-me.html
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:16 (fifteen years ago)
TeaGOP is not a good name for ridiculing purposes.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:16 (fifteen years ago)
in before alfred's post fwiw
by 'activists' i dont mean 'dem party activists' i mean 'gay rights activists' who shift the party leftward by forcing the public to acknowledge that these are issues. why would anyone running for president even acknowledge them otherwise
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:17 (fifteen years ago)
We all read the same oracles, it seems.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:17 (fifteen years ago)
I credit the Stonewall rebellion & ACT UP in New York in the 80s, and the inevitable march of history; I don't think it was guys like me signing up to canvas districts and gradually seeing our values flow upwards, or donating what we can to politicians who say they agree with us until there are actual votes to take. and besides, what has the Democratic party actually done, at a legislative level, for gay right? they talk a good line, but are there laws in place forcing insurance companies to recognize life partners? (there might be, but I don't think there are.) in other words I don't think right-on people participating at the local level is really how it happened. I think surges of militancy, and stuff happening at the broad-popular-culture level (film, music, television; the election of Harvey Milk; the AIDS epidemic, which in terrible fashion forced a fair number of people to admit that 10% of everybody, which includes 10% of everybody you dig & think is awesome, is gay) did it. the party responds once it feels certain it's only ratifying what a majority of the electorate already believes.
we do agree about a lot of basic principles deej - I just don't think the Democratic party is redeemable at all, ever. they are worthless; they'll always be worthless. the one situation in which it might get good is, a bunch of people who share our values get really stinking rich and buy themselves several generations' worth of elections. that isn't going to happen.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:18 (fifteen years ago)
― holy lolson (deej), Monday, November 8, 2010 7:17 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark
i thought you were trying to give an example of how to influence the dem party from 'the inside'
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:20 (fifteen years ago)
"the party responds once it feels certain it's only ratifying what a majority of the electorate already believes."
so you DO get how politics works
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:20 (fifteen years ago)
if I admire the GOP for anything, it's that they've never stopped, not a moment, since the late fifties. I can't ever think of a moment of extended GOP complacency. Their "grass roots" and "intellectual"/think tank side serves as a perpetual coal-mining station fueling electoral assaults. The Dems have NEVER mastered this; they don't get it.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
but the GOP can be split, too (e.g., immigration).
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
For all the accusations of socialism and incendiary revolutionary esprit hurled at the Dems, it's the GOP that has lived in a state of permanent revolution.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:22 (fifteen years ago)
the GOP don't wait for polls to shift -- they'll shift the polls themselves.
― J0rdan S., Monday, November 8, 2010 7:20 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
im asking why its necessary to do it from the outside -- its not like gay rights are 'an issue' now because the green party has been fucking with al gore's vote counts. its because activists are doing something about gay rights on a regular basis. many many many people taking many small steps. aka the 'onward march of history.' THEN political parties enter into it, when they're forced to. I dont expect the dem party to be leading the way on issues, i expect them to do what giant institutions like political parties do -- raise money, work as a tool for the people who go into politics
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:22 (fifteen years ago)
yes but what I am describing there is craven and disgusting and should be resisted with the last breath in your body, not defended online three times a week
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:23 (fifteen years ago)
deej, the problem is the Dems lack any sort of national network through which ideas are circulated, debated, affirmed, or discarded. Look at The Corner: those guys march in lockstep.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
if all the ppl on the left are busy railing at their own party like its a single person making bad decisions, i just dont know
its an institution like any other. the 'progress' comes from 'people' not leadership. ideas like 'political capital' hamstring political leaders. some will lead better than others, but the real heavy lifting is done by people who raise awareness & frame issues. the parties have to market this stuff right -- that is, as far as i can tell, the easiest ground to criticize a party -- poor marketing
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
i remember in the wake of the 2008 election where commentators were talking about the death of intellectual thought in right-circles and how they needed to combat the robust left-of-center think-tanks that have developed over the past decade or so.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:26 (fifteen years ago)
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:27 (fifteen years ago)
its an institution like any other. the 'progress' comes from 'people with money,' not leadership.
fixed this.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:29 (fifteen years ago)
also I have to lol @ "their own party" -- the Democratic party is only the "left's own party" in the sense of "if you want one, I guess you'll have to take this one, you'll hate the other one even more" -- it's like if I called xxx maniak "deej's own goregrind band" because their beats are programmed and so is some of the music you like
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:31 (fifteen years ago)
yes, right. i'll have to dig up more later.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:32 (fifteen years ago)
OTOH maybe if you go to a lot of xxx maniak shows and don't clap for the songs you don't like, they'll get the message eventually and start playing songs you'll dig -- worth a shot
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:32 (fifteen years ago)
yeah but im asking, why not take one? Why are so many ppl on the left intent on remaining 'independent' -- what good is it doing u? maybe this is bcuz im catholic but i can see being on the team & not fucking with the team's overall performance
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:32 (fifteen years ago)
dude I'm catholic too, that is why I believe in justice over expediency
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
ha im not sure voting dem is a vote for 'expediency'
i guess i just think voting is basically the least you can do & its the action w/ politics im the most pragmatic about
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:35 (fifteen years ago)
like if you're catholic and I say, we only have two religions here, LaVeyan Satanism & Crowleyan Satanism, you'll have to pick one...you probably won't pick LaVey just because he's closer to the Church, you'll say, you know what, I'm skipping Mass until there is an actual Mass
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:35 (fifteen years ago)
^^^ best analogy I have ever made btw, totally high-fiving outta this exchange on a bright note, I think there's more wine downstairs
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:36 (fifteen years ago)
high quality analogy
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:37 (fifteen years ago)
I thought you'd pick Crowley because he was of God's party and didn't know it.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:38 (fifteen years ago)
i think generally it would be more terrifying for the dem party if there really was a large, tea party style radical left, ex-dem movement pledging to stop voting for the dems
Join me in being terrifying, won't you?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 03:58 (fifteen years ago)
i didn't vote
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 03:59 (fifteen years ago)
rollin my damn eyes
i dont get it ... i mean, we saw dems voting on liberal legislation we wanted passed, right? why would you not want to support their ability to do so?
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:05 (fifteen years ago)
I credit the Stonewall rebellion & ACT UP in New York in the 80s, and the inevitable march of history; I don't think it was guys like me signing up to canvas districts and gradually seeing our values flow upwards, or donating what we can to politicians who say they agree with us until there are actual votes to take. and besides, what has the Democratic party actually done, at a legislative level, for gay right?
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, November 8, 2010 5:18 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
agree in general, but it's a mistake to define the democratic party as the group of democratic senate, house and presidential candidates (the most visible and official "democratic party"), ignoring the party as a whole, from the ground up, voters to grassroots organizers to city council members to loud voices in the media, and so on. the movement towards/for gay rights in this country has been driven by people who vote democrat and who work hard to bring out the democratic vote. the fact that so many states have begun to recognize the validity of gay marriage is a direct product of the efforts of thousands of committed political organizers working in and with the democratic party, against strong republican opposition. this is true whether or not those in the party's highest ranks have done their bit in a public way (and they generally haven't).
compare with:
I think the idea that people could push the dem party leftward is about as realistic as the idea of a third party and probably less so. will the party's ideology shift over time if the very broad public's does? yes it will. will it drift right when it's expedient to do so? no doubt. otherwise, I don't think me or 1,000,000 people like me participating at local levels will make any difference at all: unless one of us has very deep pockets and is donating to the nat'l party while making our priorities clearly known. That person can effect the party. people who aren't generate mass $$ can't, I don't think.
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, November 8, 2010 4:51 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
people can and have pushed the democratic party, as a whole, leftward. they've done it time and time again on a number of issues. the party isn't some monolithic entity with a singular mind. it's an aggregate of people, and many of those people share values in common. sure, the party bigwigs listen to money, but no one who paid attention to obama's fundraising during the '08 campaign doubts that big $$$ can result from coordinated collective action, from the combined power of seemingly powerless voices. as others have said, no one doubts that the republican party is pushed rightward by the combined voice of the the people that do or might support it, and there's no reason to imagine the democratic party functions any differently. in fact, it seems self-contradictory to say on the one hand that people have no effect on party policy, and on the other that party policy changes in response to perceived public demand. there's no difference between these things - one can't be false while the other is true.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:43 (fifteen years ago)
put more briefly: you can say that lone voices have no effect, that the parties are weathervanes responding to the winds of change and infusions of cash. which is probably true, but those "winds" don't just happen. they're themselves the product of a million million individual actions. or the roar of the masses could be farts.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:55 (fifteen years ago)
^
― iatee, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:57 (fifteen years ago)
actual real talk from contenderizer, plus a fart joke
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:57 (fifteen years ago)
well, the fart joke was stolen
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 05:02 (fifteen years ago)
sb
― holy lolson (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 05:21 (fifteen years ago)
yay, my kind of milquetoast but generally reliable congressman has officially beat that dispicable bastard he was running neck and neck with *quits holding breath*
― sister soulja boy (The Reverend), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 07:06 (fifteen years ago)
You know what, we should protest these wars! Certainly the Dems will listen to the desires of millions and millions of people who are making their voices heard!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 08:01 (fifteen years ago)
war protests haven't been as sustained or popular as the tea party shit. nonetheless, antiwar sentiment was strong enough to play a big part in obama's election (something he's done fuck all to pay back, but still).
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 08:11 (fifteen years ago)
war protests haven't been as sustained or popular covered as the tea party shit tbf. there were millions out there when it should have counted and for some time later, until kerry picked up the ball and attempted to hatch it.
― bounding (tremendoid), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 08:49 (fifteen years ago)
Trying to finish a deadline when there is a W onslaught in the media is hard.
― you've got foetus in a jar (suzy), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 11:33 (fifteen years ago)
Kevin Drum -
the smart money says the next couple of years are going to be full of fireworks, most of them very carefully designed to obscure the fact that Republicans aren't really serious about trying to cut much of anything. It should be very productive.
That sounds about right. Prepare for two years of pseudo-scandal.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 13:18 (fifteen years ago)
A James Webb interview at Real Clear Politics. He left the GOP for this?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 13:39 (fifteen years ago)
― bounding (tremendoid), Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:49 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^otm
― big hoosalah aka the ghostrider (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 15:25 (fifteen years ago)
What have I told you about diet and exercise? Exercise is irrelevant.... "How do you know all this?" One of the reasons I know what I know is that I know liberals, and I know liberals lie, and if Michelle Obama's gonna be out there ripping into "food desserts" and saying, "This is why people are fat," I know it's not true. "Rush, do you really believe that? It's that simple to you, liberals lie?" Yes, it is, folks. Once you learn that, once you come to grips with that, once you accept that, the rest is easy. Very, very simple. Now, my doctor has never told me to restrict any intake of salt, but if he did, I wouldn't. I'd just spend more time in the steam or the sauna sweating it out.
― max, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:21 (fifteen years ago)
Is that pastiche or an actual quote?
― DJP, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:22 (fifteen years ago)
according to ta nehisi coates its a direct quote
― max, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:23 (fifteen years ago)
so let me get out there in front of Shakey and be the first to wish Rush well with his impending heart attack
― DJP, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:24 (fifteen years ago)
Dietary advice from Rush Limbaugh
― Z S, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:32 (fifteen years ago)
i really didn't need the image of rush limbaugh sweating salt out of his body in a sauna
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:34 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:35 (fifteen years ago)
you wanna be pissed about DADT, take it up with John McCain, as I noted countless times upthread
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)
incredible quote
― big hoosalah aka the ghostrider (deej), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)
xxxps
Rush never lies
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:42 (fifteen years ago)
He never dies.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:50 (fifteen years ago)
he is sustained on a diet of pure truth
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
and Twinkies
― DJP, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
I wonder what truth farts smell like.
― kenan, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:13 (fifteen years ago)
that quote is amazing
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:14 (fifteen years ago)
"if a liberal tells you that the stove is hot..."
― Quesadilla Road Trip 2010 (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
"Go ahead: eat the asbestos, Mrs. Palin. Every last tasty fiber."
― you've got foetus in a jar (suzy), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110810/content/01125106.guest.html
― meta machine music (crüt), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:28 (fifteen years ago)
"Once your Tea Party has eased the regulations, you'll be kicking yourself for ever thinking floating in a pool of mercury was unsafe..."
― Floyd Smoot Hawley Tariff (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
It just occurred to me that DADT might be constitutional if it were amended to prohibit anybody from exhibiting any kind of sexual orientation whatsoever.
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
Blobfish wants earmarks
keep it up with the fiscal responsibility guys! lol
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
"To avoid setting a bad example for his kids, Haub [Twinkie diet guy] ate vegetables in front of his family."
x-post
― nickn, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:44 (fifteen years ago)
hey, guys! Rush just said the pre-existing clause in the health care bill is like "welfare."
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:15 (fifteen years ago)
"being right really doesn't have that much to do with formal education, just being street-wise smart" - Rush droppin tha knowledge
http://www.myteespot.com/images/Images_d/img_xq0RUC.jpg
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:16 (fifteen years ago)
I sort of fear that when Rush dies it will create such a massive bullshit imbalance that an inter-dimensional vortex opens up, devouring the universe like Rush devours Twinkies.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
In other news, can we arrest this motherfucker and turn him over to The Hague yet?
Former President George W. Bush was asked during an interview last night why he believes waterboarding is legal."Because the lawyer said it was," Bush said. "He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer, but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do."The full interview between Bush and Matt Lauer -- the first of a publicity tour for his memoir, Decision Points, which is out today -- aired last night.After Bush said waterboarding is legal because his Justice Department lawyers said it was, Lauer pressed him."Critics say that you got the Justice Department to give you the legal guidance and the legal memos that you wanted," he said. "Tom Kean, who was a former Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission, said they got legal opinions they wanted from their own people.""He obviously doesn't know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book," Bush replied. "That's why I've written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did."Bush has also revealed that he personally gave the order to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said, given the chance to do it over, he would make the same decision.At one point, Lauer asked, "Would it be OK for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?""All I ask is that people read the book," Bush said. "And they can reach the same conclusion. If they'd have made the same decision I made or not."
"Because the lawyer said it was," Bush said. "He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer, but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do."
The full interview between Bush and Matt Lauer -- the first of a publicity tour for his memoir, Decision Points, which is out today -- aired last night.
After Bush said waterboarding is legal because his Justice Department lawyers said it was, Lauer pressed him.
"Critics say that you got the Justice Department to give you the legal guidance and the legal memos that you wanted," he said. "Tom Kean, who was a former Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission, said they got legal opinions they wanted from their own people."
"He obviously doesn't know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book," Bush replied. "That's why I've written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did."
Bush has also revealed that he personally gave the order to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said, given the chance to do it over, he would make the same decision.
At one point, Lauer asked, "Would it be OK for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?"
"All I ask is that people read the book," Bush said. "And they can reach the same conclusion. If they'd have made the same decision I made or not."
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
Former President George W. Bush was asked during an interview last night why he believes raping his mother Barbara Bush waterboarding is legal.
"Because the lawyer said it was,"
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)
you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and he do.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
What a great leader and a great man, hiding behind a fucking lawyer like that. Some real balls on him! What a texas cowboy hero!!!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:29 (fifteen years ago)
Arrest him? We're "moving forward," haven't you heard - his line of thinking above carries the day because the only people speaking out against it are like dudes on message boards
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbbeov7AvF1qddt22o1_500.jpg
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
doesn't matter.
But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did."
Bush has also revealed that he personally gave the order to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said, given the chance to do it over, he would make the same decision. ^^ = hero to approx. 49.9% of the population. if it was closer to 20%, just hardest of the core yahoos, there might be some appreciable backlash/ heads a-rollin
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
since you brought it up, lets talk about exactly how those conversations with counsel went.
― potholes and esso assos (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)
(not suggesting that W would have anywhere near a 49.9% approval rating in general)
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)
though a straw poll between him and Obama would be interesting (depressing)
― the devil is in the dinosaur bones (will), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:44 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:40 AM (1 hour ago)
and as a few of us pointed out, repeal with this congress (which worsens by the day) wasn't and isn't about to happen any time soon. which is why promises of legislative repeal as the desirable outcome not only was morally repellant then but rang hollow as something on which they could actually follow through. but of course, this is just how politics "works", i keep forgetting
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:45 (fifteen years ago)
legislative repeal more likely than Scalia/Thomas/Alita overturning it as unconsitutional fyi
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 19:03 (fifteen years ago)
AlitO
Alito, Queen of Mars
― goole, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 19:07 (fifteen years ago)
but of course, this is just how politics "works", i keep forgetting
and yes it is how politics works and yes it is essentially morally repellant.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
battle angel alito
― max, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 19:14 (fifteen years ago)
Incisive:
The Bush Threat to ObamaNovember 9, 2010 1:40 P.M.
By Jonah Goldberg
I watched the Bush interview last night on NBC. While I might quibble with this or that, the obvious take-away, I think, is that he helped himself enormously. The fact that he won’t criticize Obama, and hasn’t for two years, actually serves as the most devastating criticism of Obama he could offer. Bush, Obama’s punching bag, is turning the other cheek and taking the higher road.
Of course, this country has always been forgiving of ex-presidents, of both parties. Nostalgia, the weight of current controversies, the desire to seem magnanimous at no cost: these are just a few of the reasons we tend to elevate ex-presidents pretty quickly. Personally, while I still have serious disagreements with the Bush administration, I think Bush is entirely deserving of personal rehabilitation. Whatever his faults, he was far from the evil ogre or dangerous dunce his detractors made him into.
What will be fascinating is to see whether increasing warm feelings for Bush (and growing nostalgia for a once-anemic Bush economy that may seem rosy compared to the Obama economy) creates real problems for the current president.
Obama has been at his shabbiest in his constant running down of his predecessor and his constant blame shifting. Some of Obama’s claims have some merit, I should concede. But they come across as unpresidential and even whiny. It worked on the campaign trail. But as Obama has been learning all-too-slowly, the presidency is not a campaign and what works on the hustings falls flat in the Oval Office.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 19:46 (fifteen years ago)
why is the statue of liberty about to be raped by an australian napoleon impersonator?
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 19:47 (fifteen years ago)
um, the "Obama economy" IS largely the "Bush economy" -- and wasn't the old GOP talking point re the Bush economy that it was "robust" (not "anemic")?
i'm not saying this to be blindly partisan -- i didn't pin the 2001 recession on Bush either.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)
you're arguing w/ a jonah goldberg post
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:03 PM (1 hour ago)
ah that terrifying three vote majority
anyway it didn't have to be put on that track if obama hadn't decided to appeal. i mean this is the kind of thing i'd love to have my doubts be proven wrong about but if and when repeal doesn't go down during the lame-duck session you're going to say "i was wrong", right?
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:29 (fifteen years ago)
not so sure about this.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:31 (fifteen years ago)
if and when repeal doesn't go down during the lame-duck session you're going to say "i was wrong", right?
probably not. I made no predictions, I just noted what the Obama administration would prefer
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:36 (fifteen years ago)
Scalia would probably say there's nothing in the Constitution about there being an inherent "right" to serve in the military lol
i know -- i'm more interested in the origin of memes (esp. if Obama doesn't keep reminding folks that he's still cleaning up the mess caused by the collapse of the Bush economy -- this is Politics 101).
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:37 (fifteen years ago)
meanwhile, Chrispie Chreme's may have to give back some of that tunnel money.
n.b. Christie is what passes as a "sensible" or "moderate" Republican these days. i weep for America.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:52 (fifteen years ago)
One way for Obama to repeal DADT.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
that's... interesting. that assumes that the Republican leadership won't be able to garner enough congressional votes to validate DADT tho (maybe they can't? I dunno)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:36 (2 hours ago)
It's all about what Kennedy thinks.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
exactly.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
Yep. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts vote together most of the time.
x-postI doubt Obama would have the courage to say to Congress and the Republican leadership that he would have DOJ withdraw its appeal and have the district court’s injunction take permanent effect. He will just let the lameduck Congress not address it, and say he did what he could.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
I guess the fun thing about a 'four horseman' situation is that sooner or kater someone breaks ranks.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:28 (fifteen years ago)
and then barry windham turns heel and joins flair, blanchard . . .
oh, nm.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:30 (fifteen years ago)
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2007/02/14/anthony-kennedy.jpg
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)
Ha, yeah. But ultimately there is much more power in being the wild card rather than a part of a voting block.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:45 (fifteen years ago)
For posters who didn't catch the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_%28Supreme_Court%29
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:49 (fifteen years ago)
Meanwhile, back at stately We're Doomed Manor . . .
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who will seek the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship maintains that we do not have to worry about climate change because God promised in the Bible not to destroy the world again after Noah’s flood.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E
Do other western democracies put up with this shit?
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
The King James version of the verse he read says, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." The LORD is, you see, expressing regret for having destroyed the rest of his creation just because man is clearly the black sheep of creation. They're not reading this scripture correctly.
― kenan, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:00 (fifteen years ago)
The King James version of the verse he read says
read this and thought briefly you meant lebron james' version of the bible. . .
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:04 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, we're seriously fucked. Joe Barton's gonna be chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2bM5_Pe-rw
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:24 (fifteen years ago)
Fucknuggets, although not unexpected.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)
Fucknuggets
this may be the greatest made-up word ever.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
"adapting is a common, natural way for people to adapt to their environment"
someone give this guy a fucking medal
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
Shakes, now's the time to post your James McReynolds info.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
i just saw the last 2 mins of Dr Strangelove, and we really need a remake w/ Obama as Merkin Muffley
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 02:52 (fifteen years ago)
A documentary?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 02:56 (fifteen years ago)
we do not have to worry about climate change because God promised in the Bible not to destroy the world again after Noah’s flood
What if it's not God destroying the world but us, though?
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 15:07 (fifteen years ago)
It's also funny because it implies that climate change is going to kill off virtually everything, Noah's flood style. No one is suggesting that climate change will kill off 99.99% of humanity except for people who invoke god's promise to Noah.
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 15:17 (fifteen years ago)
It's proof, also, of a faith not only in the God of the Bible but in laissez-faire style economic policies, implying that any human intervention is mere hubris, a position not clearly found anywhere in scripture.
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 15:22 (fifteen years ago)
From the Daily Mail comments: (As head explodes...)
Representive Shimkiss has a pint, a very good pint. The lord Cod rote is words in the Bibel for all to see. Ye infidels and blastfemurs shall be cast down and become upset because Jesus is mad with them.- tonythetinyassassin, Dinnington U.K, 10/11/2010 14:54
― Blastfemur (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 15:27 (fifteen years ago)
I think tony may have had a few good pints, too.
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 15:34 (fifteen years ago)
blastfemurs
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 16:33 (fifteen years ago)
I knew a couple dudes in college who almost named their band BLAST FEMUR.
― joygoat, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:06 (fifteen years ago)
After going through the catastrophic BP Oil Spill will a Dem congress and a Dem president and having absolutely nothing to show for it, there's little that could happen (or not) to US energy policy that would surprise me in the future. This idiot quoting the Bible should really piss me off, but then again what have the Godless Secular Liberals in power done in the past year to address climate change?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:15 (fifteen years ago)
here comes the cat food!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php
nb i haven't read these yet
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:03 (fifteen years ago)
most of it seems reasonable to me, altho eliminating the health plan exemption and the mortgage payment exemption will NEVER fly (and I personally wouldn't dig it either)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
The recommendations, in their current form, would never get the approval of 14 of the 18 members of the commission (and thus wouldn't move on to Congress).
It seems like they're starting on the extreme shitty end so that they can be negotiated down to "still pretty shitty" level over the next 3 weeks.
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)
i'm kind of torn on those tbh! as a matter of principle i think gov't policy ought to be a support system to the broadest possible swathe of the american people. but tax-subsidies for health insurance and home ownership have been kind of a mess.
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:15 (fifteen years ago)
wait -- raise the age to qualify for social security; eliminate all earmarks; increase medicaid co-pays; kill the office of safe/drug-free schools; kill funding to corporation for public broadcasting; merge dep't commerce and SBA and slash the resulting agency's budget by 10% -- is this a democratic or republican plan?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:16 (fifteen years ago)
Exactly
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:17 (fifteen years ago)
it's "bipartisan"
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:17 (fifteen years ago)
bicrazyan.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:17 (fifteen years ago)
it's the anti-stimulus.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)
It's the same old story: Obama went out of his way to start the process from "the middle", and the final product was steered way the hell to the right.
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)
raise the age to qualify for social security;kill funding to corporation for public broadcasting;
I'm not okay with these things fwiw
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, i think the GOP has some reasonable arguments, from time-to-time, on deficit reduction and related subjects, but we're still grinding through an anemic, jobless recovery with the possibility of slipping back into a technical great rescession ("technical" because, for many people, we're not out of rescession now). so is this wise at this time?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:20 (fifteen years ago)
CharlieBrownLucyFootball.gif
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:21 (fifteen years ago)
i just spotted a blog post at TPM that summarizes my feelings: why now?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:24 (fifteen years ago)
also reading about what this would mean for social-security is . . . shocking to me, coming from a democratic president. this seems crazy.
This is a deficit reduction commission. One of the items involves a tax cut. One of the items recommends defunding CBR. This is a joke.
Does anyone know how much it costs to fund CPR? Is it more than a thousandth of the cost of funding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for one day?
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)
Sorry, CPB, iPhone fail
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:26 (fifteen years ago)
yeah CPB budget is miniscule. like, smaller than NASA's even iirc
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:26 (fifteen years ago)
420 mil
― max, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/
out of 2.7 trillion
― max, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
more like 4:20 amirite
― idgital love (crüt), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
(in 2009)
Also a joke - reduce federal contractors (…good…), except for defense-related contractors.
\_O_/
More than half of contracting dollars goes to DOD!
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.
this is even bigger crazy talk than getting rid of the marines, to be really real
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
Ok, 420 million is admittedly more than I thought. But still, it's about 1/6000 of the budget (mental math, may be off), and it gets it's own special shoutout in the list of recommendations?
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:32 (fifteen years ago)
lol I'm in favor of getting rid of the marines. hell let's eliminate the entire DOD while we're at it
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:32 (fifteen years ago)
it's very sad to me. makes the administration seem craven and unserious. i realize some of you thought that already. i've been more inclined to recognize the need for hard choices and compromises -- but the suggested cuts are precisely to the type of programs that are sacred cows you may be willing to compromise elsewhere in order to protect, and cutting the budget in this way, at this time, seems like hoover-ism to me.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)
let's be clear, these recommendations are not going anywhere, so no hand-wringing is really necessary.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
2+ wars going on and they think admission to the smithsonian is worth talking about
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
the suggested cuts are precisely to the type of programs that are sacred cows you may be willing to compromise elsewhere in order to protect
that didn't come out right. i meant, the programs that are on the cutting block are the ones that democratic administrations traditionally fight like crazy to protect, even to the point of compromising on other key programs/issues elsewhere on the agenda.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
this is basically all for show - token bipartisanship gesture on behalf of O
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:35 (fifteen years ago)
combat operations in Iraq have ceased and our troops are out FYI, pretty sure we aren't pouring multiple billions per month into that country anymore
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)
no matter. it represents the suggestions of the administration. and i don't see why the president would suggest these things. they won't win a single republican vote in congress or in 2012. and it's bad policy, especially now.
why do this?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)
(by all means correct me if I'm wrong)
now, we have to trust the TPM writer here a little:
Their recommendations are more or less a list of the third-rail issues of American politics, including cuts in the number of federal workers; increasing the costs of participating in veterans and military health care systems; increasing the age of Social Security eligibility; and major cuts in defense and foreign policy spending.
but this last point doesn't get a bullet. i wonder what they mean. "eh, get rid of the state dept"
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)
seriously? this is basically all for show - token bipartisanship gesture on behalf of O. this is blatantly obvious. this is what bipartisan commissions are for.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:37 (fifteen years ago)
i wonder what they mean. "eh, get rid of the state dept"
eliminate Colin Powell's pension lol
what is the political or tactical advantage shakey?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:38 (fifteen years ago)
i'm not trying to argue with you. i see the need, from time to time, for kabuki theater. i just see zero wisdom in this instance.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:39 (fifteen years ago)
so, put differently, i'm genuinely curious in your view/answer.
political maneuvering so that he can say "see, I tried to be bipartisan, I had this commission!" when he gets accused of being uncooperative by Senator Blobfish and the Boner
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
brad delong loses it:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/11/yes-the-entitlement-commission-was-an-unforced-error-by-the-obama-administration.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/11/masters-of-negative-five-dimensional-chess.html
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:41 (fifteen years ago)
he tried to do a similar thing on healthcare where he made a show of listening to/adopting some Republican proposals and then painted them as idiotic obstructionists when his overtures were rebuffed.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:41 (fifteen years ago)
whoops wrong one, not that you couldn't find it yourself...
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/11/erskine-bowles-and-alan-simpson-are-the-only-two-members-of-the-entitlement-commission-who-endorse-their-recommendations.html
having a comeback for the accusation is worthless because the accusation will be made regardless the evidence anyway, before and after the supposed "comeback"
xp yeah see that didn't really matter either. what's the idea, prove yourself to be the really reasonable one? prove to whom??? the public doesn't care.
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
demonstrating to republicans and people angry about "big government" and "out of control government spending" that you are serious about budget reduction seems politically savvy to me, especially if the cuts are sensible. like defunding NPR means nothing, but it's a political hot-button, and granting this flyspeck indicates a desire for bipartisan accord. plus it won't much harm NPR, which (as i understand it) only gets about 3% of its annual operating budget from the gov't.
doing this (i assume/hopefully) undercuts republicans' ability to foment outrage over profligate gov't spending during a time of need & crisis.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:45 (fifteen years ago)
by offering to compromise the core elements of democratic policy, i think he's doing himself a tremendous disservice in 2012. what will he be able to defend? will he be able to say that, in contrast to the GOP, he will tirelessly defend social-securty? will he be able to say that, in contrast to the GOP, he will reaffirm the democratic party's policy of providing a safety net to those in need? will he be able to energize his base by claiming he will protect the programs most significant to them, especially in a time of great economic upheaval? even if these proposals die a quick and quiet death, he has removed the ability to use these as wedge issues when he'll need them most.
this is stupid. and the fact that it would be terribly bad policy, at this time, makes it even crazier -- as theater or otherwise.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:46 (fifteen years ago)
especially if the cuts are sensible
this is the rub.
nah i think that kind of calculation is a mistake, because the other side is not playing by the same rules. "people angry about "big government" and "out of control government spending"" are feeling it on the level of myth, there is no gesture beyond losing in 2012 that will assuage them, whereupon america's fiscal health will suddenly seem on the right track, even if nothing whatsoever changes.
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:48 (fifteen years ago)
and the healthcare compromises were very different. for one thing, he was forming new policy proposals, not decimating the key programs we've been able to enact, which have won widespread public support. for another thing, he flatly -- and correctly -- said there wasn't enough congressional support for the public option, which was the biggest item compromised. here, quite to the contrary, congress -- even a far more red congress -- will not support these cuts.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:49 (fifteen years ago)
agree that the proposed social security cuts are a huge, huge mistake
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:49 (fifteen years ago)
As of feb 2010, we spent $5.5 billion a month in Iraq, and projections for fiscal year 2011 were $46 billion (about $4 billion per month), at least according to this USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:50 (fifteen years ago)
well, look, maybe i should reframe it. if obama really wants to be the "adult in the room," which i think he often is, maybe -- as painful as it would be -- he wants to open a discussion of whether americans must downwardly adjust their expectations about their quality of life and income. but wow, that's a discussion that virtually every politician concerned about self-preservation would avoid like the plague.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:52 (fifteen years ago)
I have my doubts...
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:53 (fifteen years ago)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/unserious-people-2/
krugman no likee if you couldn't guess
anyway, this isn't the recommendation of the 18 member panel, this is just two guys trying to start the conversation on their terms. good job!
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:56 (fifteen years ago)
he wants to open a discussion of whether americans must downwardly adjust their expectations about their quality of life and income. but wow, that's a discussion that virtually every politician concerned about self-preservation would avoid like the plague.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:52 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
OTM. he hinted at this several times during the campaign, speaking of the need to make sacrifices in the name of the greater good, metaphors about overextended credit cards and the like. was often praised for his honesty & political bravery in this regard, though he never clearly indicated what kinds of sacrifices he was talking about. suppose this is the sound of the other shoe dropping...
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:58 (fifteen years ago)
guys this is not "obama" speaking here
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:59 (fifteen years ago)
Hi, guys: was at a conference all afternoon. What are we bashing Obama about today?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:01 (fifteen years ago)
^^^lol
I didn't say I agreed with this approach or that it was a smart thing to do, fwiw - but Obama clearly cares a great deal about being perceived as reasonable
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:04 (fifteen years ago)
"people angry about "big government" and "out of control government spending"" are feeling it on the level of myth, there is no gesture beyond losing in 2012 that will assuage them, whereupon america's fiscal health will suddenly seem on the right track, even if nothing whatsoever changes.
^^^this is totally otm
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
and projections for fiscal year 2011 were $46 billion (about $4 billion per month), at least according to this USA Today article:
man this is crazy you'd think the costs would come down more than that with troops being withdrawn
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:07 (fifteen years ago)
here's more about the defense side of the proposal
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/deficit-plan-scraps-pentagon-jets-tanks-trucks/
xp shakey i think a lot of line troops have been swapped out with contractors who are more expensive in the short run
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, was gonna say. no argument w/ goole there. but the hardliners aren't the people obama's pitching to. it's the "moderates", the ones in the middle who might be swayed by arguments either way. those are the people who are gonna make or break the next election for him.
― naked human hands and a foam rubber head (contenderizer), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:09 (fifteen years ago)
note "moderates" lol. maybe i meant "independent voters." lol scare quotes.
also as goole said it is important to note that these are NOT policies Obama has endorsed or expressed an interest in fighting for. the theater part is having the commission at all - the fact that the commission's recommendations are (like Baker's Iraq Study Group) in all likelihood going to be totally ignored makes this even more obvious.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:12 (fifteen years ago)
like, this commission could recommend whatever nonsense it wants (and it appears to have done just that) and they aren't going to go anywhere so Obama has nothing to lose from it while still being able to point to it as a legitimate gesture of bipartisanship.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:13 (fifteen years ago)
Crazy, but not surprising. As I Write this, today I'm basically being forced to task a contractor to correct a few "bugs" in a legacy system for more than 50K, even though everyone here agrees that it shouldn't cost more than 10K. Everything related to contracting is wildly inflated. If the Iraq war was about teaching everyone there to floss I bet it would still cost at least a billion per year. That's why when the commission recommended cutting reliance on contractors EXCEPT for DoD related joints I just threw my hands up in the air. America, ltd (tm)
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:20 (fifteen years ago)
Also, xposts, Daniel you're acting like the Obama administration decided what the commission's recommendations would be, but afaik it's an independent commission, co-chaired by people Obama appointed. His mistake was in choosing fucking Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)
I doubt that was a mistake. He got the results he wanted. Now he can be Bill Clinton Redux.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
His mistake was in choosing fucking Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles
fair enough. has the administration issued any statement endorsing or repudiating the commission's proposals?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:07 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/white_house_not_biting.php
― goole, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:11 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i mean whether this is all some calculated political move, this is certainly not a positive development
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:24 (fifteen years ago)
the Chief Executive has a proud tradition of ignoring blue ribbon committees (Tower Commission, Iraq Study Group, etc).
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)
well, the white house's stance is good news.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:28 (fifteen years ago)
seems very convenient tho. i wonder if the administration encountered a tsunami of negative feedback immediately, and began to distance itself from the commission (or at least build wiggleroom for itself).
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
well there wasn't much in that statement that hinted one way or another? and i doubt there was much negative feedback immediately; we've known ever since this was announced that it would look something like this. not a huge surprise
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:34 (fifteen years ago)
Surprising (qualified) support:
I've quickly scanned the Simpson-Bowles draft proposal and find it extremely encouraging. It really does hit what the Dish regards as key themes for a new fiscal order: 1986-style tax reform (largely removing deductions and lowering rates); serious defense retrenchment; focusing social security on the truly needy and raising the retirement age; hard cost-controls in Medicare; a real populist attack on government waste.
It reads like the manifesto the Tea Party never published. Every detail needs thinking through and debate. Much of it is way over my head in terms of the specifics of government programs and the ability to cut them. But the core proposal is honest, real, and vital. I recommend you download and read both documents.
If I were the president, I would embrace this and urge passage of these proposals as the key domestic objective of his next two years in office. If I were the GOP, intent not on politics but on restraining spending and the debt, I would make this a joint endeavor. If I were the Tea Party, I would leap at this as a way past the old two parties toward fiscal sanity.
I am merely a blogger. But the Dish will follow this debate with all the passion that true fiscal conservatives can muster.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:34 (fifteen years ago)
Sully, btw
How is that surprising? I thought his entire political identity was "STOP SPENDING ALL THE MONEY (ps: I hate Palin and I'm gay)"
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:35 (fifteen years ago)
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
If I were the GOP, intent not on politics but on restraining spending and the debt
lol you are clearly NOT the GOP
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:37 (fifteen years ago)
Right, but I've never taken him seriously unless one of his views coincides with one of mine.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:38 (fifteen years ago)
a good overall rule imo
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:38 (fifteen years ago)
Can anyone, anywhere come up with a non-retarded reason why, in a country with incomes as crazily distributed as we have here, there should be only three tax brackets? As far as I'm concerned, we don't have enough brackets NOW. Why on earth should someone making $300,000 a year be taxed at the same top marginal rate as someone making $3 million? Or $300 million?
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
It was actually worse before 1986.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
I recommend you download and read both documents.
hoho
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:52 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/07/one-word-preparation/
have you guys been reading this stuff about harry reids campaign for re-election? i know hes not well loved around here but i have a soft spot for this kind of political maneuvering, esp. when its not just fluff considering that going by the numbers reid should have lost by a lot
― max, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:02 (fifteen years ago)
listening to Nadler and King posture about their respective Dubya-torture stances I am struck by how Dubya appears to be successfully insinuating that something isn't torture unless it causes permanent damage. Which might sound reasonable upon first glance ("oh it didn't REALLY hurt") but when you consider what torture actually IS - the infliction of pain to elicit information - it's readily apparent how immaterial, not to mention counterintuitive (ie, if it wasn't painful, it wouldn't work! duh) this distinction is. Really disgusting imho.
like, let's see, things that don't cause "permanent damage" that are definitely torture:- Rape- Beatings (hey those bruises go away!)- Broken bones (hey those bones heal!)- etc.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:03 (fifteen years ago)
The last line made me gag though.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
Like the death penalty, explaining the evil of torture requires an eloquence and patience neither the executive nor the legislative branches wish to expend. To millions of people like my parents, they can't understand the cavils about extracting information from alleged evildoers. Not only are we performing a practical function, but these men deserve it. Despite the contempt with which Bush is held by a wide swath of the electorate, they admire the unambiguity of Bush admitting to authorizing torture, and the enthusiasm for doing it again.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:08 (fifteen years ago)
that's true. many people have trouble getting past the notion that "these are the bad guys we're talking about; they don't deserve our mercy or restraint."
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:11 (fifteen years ago)
I wonder what the correlation is b/w support of waterboarding and support of the death penalty
― Z S, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:14 (fifteen years ago)
Interesting stuff, max
x-posts
― Oh do come to the mod illuminati conclave chez (Michael White), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:18 (fifteen years ago)
many people have trouble getting past the notion that "these are the bad guys we're talking about; they don't deserve our mercy or restraint."
Throughout history.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)
One of the instances that Godwin himself would probably agree is actually worth a Hitler analogy.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:25 (fifteen years ago)
The Alan Simpson deficit plan like Representative Paul Ryan's plan lowers the tax rates and payments for the well-to-do AND then says, oh we have to make painful cuts in everything else...
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
hm. kevin drum: is the deficit comm'n serious?.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
I'm not posting an opinion yet, especially when so many cursory ones are posted already. The NYT says it's an impressive start.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
yeah their editorial page enjoys putting its "serious" hat on from time to time and it's an annoying look
anyway, good news: bipartisanship!
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
^^^Disgusting. and I wish they would learn the lesson of not giving the opposition what it wants from the get-go, poor negotiating strategy
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:45 (fifteen years ago)
is that even still negotiating?
― Simon H., Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
hey man, we have to deal with the world as we find it
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:51 (fifteen years ago)
krugman
― Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 11 November 2010 17:55 (fifteen years ago)
the lame-duck Congress is to blame for the tax mess, in that they decided to push voting for keeping the middle class tax cuts until after the election.
jackasses, all of them.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
every one has their "issue" -- j0hn's is torture, others have theirs. this is mine, and if Obama caves in on making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent than i am out permanently.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
To Canada with you!
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
I do hope you didn't mean you were going to kill yourself.
no no, absolutely NOT that Kenan!
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:48 (fifteen years ago)
"issue" in scare quotes is terrifying me, like you are about to splooge all over the tax code
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:51 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, that i am outta the Democratic Party for good and Obama can suck it. he will deserve to lose in 2012, and i will pray to God that there is someone who will put the fear of God in him in the primaries. i can live with Rcckefeller Republicanism; i cannot tolerate Reaganism.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:52 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, making the bush-era tax cuts permanent (and make no mistake about it, if Obama caves in the tax cuts for the wealthy WILL be permanent) and this deficit commission report (yeah yeah i know their findings aren't binding but who appointed Simpson and Erskine Bowles? and if Obama caves on the tax cuts who's to say he won't cave on Social Security?) are open-handed bitch slaps in the face to the middle class. no Democrat should support any of this shit, not even the Bluest of Blue Dogs.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 11 November 2010 20:07 (fifteen years ago)
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 11 November 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
over tax cuts, really
― deej, Thursday, 11 November 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:36 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
i call bullshit. you were already out
i think u guys really overestimated what obama or anyone could reasonably do, politically
― deej, Thursday, 11 November 2010 22:55 (fifteen years ago)
if youre going to criticize effectiveness tho you should really be looking more at tactics beyond "omg he doesnt know how to bargain!!"
OK, so let's criticize him for being a pussy.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 November 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
I'm waiting for confirmation of today's Beltway gossip about Axelrod's quote, but if it turns out the administration really is approving the Bush tax cuts for everyone, it's going to hurt me like FISA and DADT-waffling already have.
The question, again, deej, is how much can you take?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.samefacts.com/2010/11/uncategorized/stray-thoughts-on-the-deficit-politics/
this is "good".
i think given the politics of the moment, the best possible outcome is... nothing. but i think we'll get a shitty something in the end.
― goole, Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:00 (fifteen years ago)
omg he doesnt know how to bargain!
pretty clear by this stage that he needs to get better at this tbh
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:03 (fifteen years ago)
Dear Obama, please stop negotiating from a position of being eager to please. I thought those McCain ads about how you're a celebrity diva were just exaggerating. You are beginning to look as if you may have some self esteem issues. It's easier said than done, I know, but at some point you just have to say, "Fuck what they think of me." You were cool in high school, weren't you? You need to get over that.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:07 (fifteen years ago)
It's a dull, obvious point, I know it is. But it's true enough, and he isn't getting it.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)
I need some info on these expiring tax cuts:
1) Will it take a new law to continue them?
if so, can't Obama simply veto this new law?
2) Or, do the cuts continue until a new law is passed?
― browns zero loss (brownie), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:21 (fifteen years ago)
tax cuts expire Dec 31st unless a new law is passed
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:22 (fifteen years ago)
and the GOP is saying they ALL have to be renewed or NONE of them get renewed (ie, holding cuts for those making less than $250k hostage at the expense of those making more. way to go guys! real egalitarian there)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:23 (fifteen years ago)
a brief summation
I can't imagine Pelosi will publicly OK this
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:26 (fifteen years ago)
i was promised magic unicorns.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:40 (fifteen years ago)
Judging by his posts, deej wanted Calvin Coolidge -- a prez putting his feet up on the desk and snoozing the livelong day, not beholden to anyone, so a voter "expecting" anything is a fool.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:46 (fifteen years ago)
i don't think that's what he's saying, but obv., i'll let him speak for himself.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:47 (fifteen years ago)
He's never articulated what he wants from this person in the white House.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
i was promised magic unicorns.― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:40 PM (11 minutes ago)
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:40 PM (11 minutes ago)
Joanna Newsom - Have One On Me (RIP blogs)
― markers, Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:52 (fifteen years ago)
(RIP america)
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:53 (fifteen years ago)
don't have time right now to write an extended response to deej or why i think that caving on the Dubya tax cuts would be a complete betrayal, and deej can defend himself and his way of thinking when he has the time to do so. but really, at this point it seems to me as though there's NOTHING that Obama could do or propose doing that would shake deej from his seemingly rock solid faith in the guy.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:56 (fifteen years ago)
what if he shot an old white guy in the face
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 November 2010 23:57 (fifteen years ago)
or what if he organized a break-in of the GOP's DC headquarters and then arranged an elaborate cover-up of it, while bombing cambodia
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 00:04 (fifteen years ago)
"We have to deal with the world as we find it."
http://imgur.com/KB4X5.jpg
― reckon you should stfu (bnw), Friday, 12 November 2010 00:11 (fifteen years ago)
― deej, Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:55 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
That's the fighting spirit!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 12 November 2010 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
deej here's something he could do politically: go on tv every motherfucking night until new years and explain to people how republicans will hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage unless the richest 2 percent, who don't need tax cuts, get theirs too. while reminding everyone that the democrats still hold a majority and if anyone is going to back down it's not gonna fucking be them because he knows it's the right thing to do
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 01:25 (fifteen years ago)
Axelrod says it's not true, btw, but they're still saying "open to compromise."
But if it is true I can't fathom defending it. It's idiotic politics.
― clotpoll, Friday, 12 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
insert yr own lol @ Democrats and the depths they'll sink to aero post here
thx guys I honestly don't have the energy for it any more & am trying hard to reach a point of true apathy
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 01:41 (fifteen years ago)
Stick around, aero, so we can get Obama elected in '12.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
as i understand it the substance of the issue is not friendly to anyone. it's the bush tax cuts on the middle class that really blows the hole in the long term budget, worse than the upper income slice, no matter how bad it looks. letting them all expire would probably be the best thing imo, long term. but nobody is going to allow taxes to go up on the majority of voting households. and there's a recession going on consumer is stretched.
obama could just come out with his own line in the sand on the bush tax cuts, sunset the upper income one and extend the ones for everyone else. or give a two or three year extension for all of them, or whatever. but everybody seems to want tot punt to this stupid commission which nobody is going to act on anyway.
― goole, Friday, 12 November 2010 01:52 (fifteen years ago)
but drawing big lines in any sand anywhere is not his thing really, is it
― goole, Friday, 12 November 2010 01:54 (fifteen years ago)
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:56 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
what 'rock solid faith in the guy' -- im talking about reasonable expectations for any president. i consider passing health care, financial reform etc to be 'successes,' much bigger successes than anything clinton accomplished, and they're about as reasonably happy as ill get about this kind of stuff
i just think its totally misguided to get angry at obama. he becomes a convenient scapegoat for a system that is fundamentally fucked up in any number of ways, a great way to liberals to pat themselves on the back for how perceptive & 'real' their progressive bona fides are
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 01:55 (fifteen years ago)
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:21 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
if the 'fighting spirit' is just talking on a message board about how much of a wuss obama is over & over w/out insight or adding anything interesting to the conversation, then fuck fighting spirit
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 01:57 (fifteen years ago)
at least k3v is, like, passionate. youre just corny
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:25 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
and then the republicans do a stunt back, and it gets reported by a lame national news media as the 'controversy over tax cuts' where 'dems say this will happen. republicans say this will happen.' and we're exactly where we started
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 01:58 (fifteen years ago)
You do realize "financial reform" is a joke if these tax cuts expire, right?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:00 (fifteen years ago)
i mean jesus am i happy about this proposition? no. do i think theres another way out of it? i dont know. id rather here ppl postulating about what could be done that doesnt amount to WHY DOESNT OBAMA JUST TELL THE PEOPLE WHY HIS IDEAS ARE BETTER because, come on, he has?? and the republicans do the same? and maybe we need to work specifically, as i keep repeating, on which TACTICS will convince ppl that the dems are right about this one
because i dont buy "obama should go on tv every night" as a particularly effective tactic.
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:01 (fifteen years ago)
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:00 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
no i dont see how the increased regulation of the financial industry has anything to do w/ these tax cuts
but the problem is that the Republicans are hammering away at this "OBAMA RAISE TAXES IN RECESSION BIGGEST TAX HIKE EVER" and if Obama's response to this bullshit is a meek "well we'd like to keep the taxes on the rich but we could compromise" and then basically gives up, well that's real fucking depressing. "Controversy over tax cuts" if Obama's presenting a real argument is a hell of a lot better than "Obama rolls over again."
― clotpoll, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:12 (fifteen years ago)
The minimal regulation his bill promises will combine with the "optics" of cutting taxes on the rich to create yet another bevy of mixed signals. Kind of like how Bill Clinton allowed gays to serve in the military if only they kept quiet about it and then passed DOMA a few years later.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:17 (fifteen years ago)
is it? i guess at the least it would keep you guys from saying he didnt go down fighting? he seems like a guy who operates on a 'choose your battles' method
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:17 (fifteen years ago)
anyway, don't the polls show that Obama would have public support on this? Forcing a showdown with the Republicans would probably work in his favor. I'd say it's a battle he should choose.
― clotpoll, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:17 PM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
oh no mixed signals!! in the meantime, the financial industry is ... still regulated?
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
Then you have to wonder why this battle isn't worth choosing.
― Gukbe, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
Says who?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:19 (fifteen years ago)
― clotpoll, Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:18 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
at this point i want to make it clear that im playing devil's advocate right now bcuz i dont know that its right for him to fold on this (and we dont know that he actually will) but id rather someone play devils advocate than us all go hand in hand patting each other on the back over how bad a job obama's doing SO:
are the republicans likely to pull the trigger, let the tax cuts expire, blame the dems for raising taxes in the 2012 elections? then its an electoral bloodbath, right?
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:20 (fifteen years ago)
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:19 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark
the ... law that was passed? i dont understand your point. this isnt about 'punishing' the financial industry, (although wouldnt it be nice etc.) its about laying down reasonable financial regulations
anyway, do you have a mortgage? are you gay? have you been unemployed for more than nine months? If you answer no to any one of these questions, Obama's your guy, cuz you have nothing at stake.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
― deej, Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:20 PM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
like wouldnt it be better to take a couple L's now & play it politically safe, then work towards getting the house back in 2012 & passing actual shit again
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:21 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
are you disingenuous? incapable of arguing reasonably? rather just hammer away condescendingly? then alfred's your guy
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:22 (fifteen years ago)
The regulations are minimal relative to every bit of malfeasance Wall Street's committed since Glass-Steagall was gutted last decade. But, yeah sure, the bill is an "achievement." Put that one in the score column.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
im not trying to score points alfred!! thats exactly my point. this isnt some stupid game, its about getting the most done long-term in the most effective way
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:24 (fifteen years ago)
can we stop pretending that constant, neverending full-court press is the only way to succeed, or even a way to succeed whatsoever?
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:25 (fifteen years ago)
it seems to me if we need blue dog / mod repub approval to hold the line on these cuts, im not sure what pressure we can bring to bear on these blue dog / mod r's that isn't overwhelmed by the knowledge that raising taxes on middle class families is going to be disastrous politically for years to come. what can dems do about the public perception of these cuts that will actually force the hands of these blue dogs?
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:27 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, can you guys just admit that sometimes, a battle isnt winnable? that no amount of grandstanding about principle is gonna change the fact that tax cuts w/ a sunset like this were the perfect tool for the GOP to push extensions in the first place?
now, if we are talking abuot what kind of D's we run in conservative districts two years ago, im totally with greenwald -- more grayson's would have made resistance a lot more tenable
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:29 (fifteen years ago)
Damn, dude...I wish Obama had an ounce of the fight you have in you when it comes to defending his track record. An ounce! I think it would benefit a lot of people to read Griftopia. The rules changed a while ago, Obama knows this now and is behaving accordingly.
― an album fulla man down (Spinspin Sugah), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:38 (fifteen years ago)
i mean what dems need to do is come up w/ strategies like the sunrise'd tax cuts, where you stick the opposite party between a rock & a hard place, where they have to either a) look like pushovers or b) do something wildly unpopular -- so the dem base takes some hits, but better than losing all over the place, i guess
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:39 (fifteen years ago)
― an album fulla man down (Spinspin Sugah), Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:38 PM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i just want you guys to observe the caliber of ilxor arguing with me right now
i mean, if im bothering to answer one of ilx's worst posters seriously, id point out that nowhere in here have i said anything about defending obama's 'track record'
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:40 (fifteen years ago)
I wish I could be offended by that.
― an album fulla man down (Spinspin Sugah), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:41 (fifteen years ago)
but coming from an even worst poster, doesn't count for much.
― an album fulla man down (Spinspin Sugah), Friday, 12 November 2010 02:43 (fifteen years ago)
or worse, even.
http://www.melaniekissell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/rubber-and-glue.jpg
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:45 (fifteen years ago)
I'm not sure that it's going to be possible to get the Republicans to give in, but wouldn't it be better (politically) to let the fight happen, slam Republicans as defenders of the rich, and if all else fails they can either work out some sort of last-minute compromise, or else give in with the caveat that they are doing this only to save the middle class from doom at the hands of the Republicans? Giving in now just makes them look weak, and gives the Republicans all the credit for extending the middle class tax cuts.
― clotpoll, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:46 (fifteen years ago)
^^^ this seems like a good point -- this is what i mean about tactics & strategy. this kind of post is interesting to me! it does seem like it would be smarter to keep up the public perception of a fight to the finish (although how do you hold all your cards in like that as a practical matter?)
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:47 (fifteen years ago)
I also think it's a good issue to turn into a massive national argument - the prob is we're playing chicken w/ people who have nothing to lose
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:50 (fifteen years ago)
what can dems do about the public perception of these cuts that will actually force the hands of these blue dogs?
― deej, Friday, November 12, 2010 2:27 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark
Have Obama go on tv every night, obviously. The CSPAN bump!
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 12 November 2010 02:51 (fifteen years ago)
― iatee, Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:50 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark
too risky with election season upon us.
― reckon you should stfu (bnw), Friday, 12 November 2010 03:12 (fifteen years ago)
im not saying that? who is?
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 03:16 (fifteen years ago)
jokes. I think everyone was saying the same thing clotpoll did. was kind of weird that you went from outrage to agreeing.
― reckon you should stfu (bnw), Friday, 12 November 2010 03:26 (fifteen years ago)
i dont think thats what eisbar was saying? he was saying if the tax cuts arent repealed for the upper income brackets hes giving up on obama, which imo is like, weird way to direct your energy
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 03:51 (fifteen years ago)
um, actually i am saying that IF the tax cuts for the upper income brackets ARE repealed for the upper income brackets then i'm giving up on Obama. you may think that's counterproductive or something, or think that there's some sort of grand strategy or Jedi mind trick that i am just not seeing. but what i do see is both a major political blunder AND a betrayal of what i was brought to believe any Democrat should stand for (i.e., basic naked pandering to the upper income brackets). sorry, but that's where i draw the line (just like John D draws the line with permitting torture or Alfred draws the line with don't ask don't tell) and if Obama rolls over on this issue then he is dead to me. after that i MAY vote for him in 2012, but only to prevent a Palin/Bachmann takeover.
and when did i become one of ILX's worst posters?!?
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Friday, 12 November 2010 04:29 (fifteen years ago)
i never said you were?? i was talking about spinsah
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 05:04 (fifteen years ago)
but yeah i dont see a politically feasible way for him to get what he wants on this issue. i mean, just bcuz of how govt works, its up to the blue dogs. feel free to offer reasonable methods of 'winning' on this one but i dont see a path
― deej, Friday, 12 November 2010 05:05 (fifteen years ago)
actually, i botched it again ... i mean to say that if the tax cuts for the upper income brackets are NOT repealed.
it's late and my eyes are sore.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Friday, 12 November 2010 05:26 (fifteen years ago)
duh ... i had it right for the 11:29PM post -- i really AM too tired.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Friday, 12 November 2010 05:27 (fifteen years ago)
― clotpoll, Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― deej, Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:47 PM (Yesterday)
dude just become a democratic party strategist or something already, shit god
why the hell should the democrats have to roll over on this one? why do we have to assume from the get-go that we're not going to get what we want and give up? why can't we try to frame the republicans as the bad guys here? take the fight to them - say you're looking to extend tax cuts for the people who need them, and say that republicans and their fat wealthy friends are standing in the way of that. this is an important issue! it's a hill democrats should be willing to die on - the public still hates republicans at least as much as democrats and it's a perfect opportunity to play them to type - obstructionist assholes who will sell out the middle class for the wealthiest 2%. they should fucking back down, not us
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 05:55 (fifteen years ago)
right, except they won't because there is absolutely no reason for them to back down
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 06:01 (fifteen years ago)
can we all at least agree that we would like to see some democratic senators die on a hill?
― J0rdan S., Friday, 12 November 2010 06:02 (fifteen years ago)
the whole "we're not gonna do class warfare rhetoric" irks at this point. instead dems plan to win using the prince gif against gop/koch.
― potholes and esso assos (Hunt3r), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:04 (fifteen years ago)
― iatee, Friday, November 12, 2010 1:01 AM (2 minutes ago)
what's the democrat's reason for becking down, besides "someone's gotta"
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:04 (fifteen years ago)
what's the nightmare scenario for them? we fight them to the end, nothing gets passed and...'democrats raise taxes'.
I do think this is an issue we should fight on, fwiw, both cause it's something that matters to me and something that I think we can win some points on. but I don't think we can win in the end, no matter how much we 'take the fight to them', because it's a game of chicken w/ drunk fratboys in the other car.
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 06:05 (fifteen years ago)
aside from them being drunk fratboys, if nothing gets past, the dems will be obliterated next election
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:11 (fifteen years ago)
we fight them to the end, nothing gets passed and...'democrats raise taxes'.
well this is assuming that this will be the public's reaction - and yeah i guess if this is the kind of shit dems are constantly terrified of then no wonder we can't have nice things
i mean seriosuly you'd have to be pretty pessimistic to believe that there could be a bill that gives tax cuts to everyone in the country making less than 250k, which would pass the house easily, and if it gets jammed in the senate we couldn't figure out a good way to frame the republicans as the bad guys, which they are. i guess it just comes down to whether it's a battle worth fighting, and i think it is
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:11 (fifteen years ago)
passed i mean
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, November 12, 2010 12:11 AM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
but ... it will be. taxes will go up. its political suicide
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:12 (fifteen years ago)
for fuck's sake it's been nine days since the election and deej has brought up 2012 twice in the last 5 hours.
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:13 (fifteen years ago)
not sure that anyone who isn't 'pretty pessimistic' should even pay attention to american politics
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 06:15 (fifteen years ago)
is it never not election season? when is a good time to raise taxes? never?
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:15 (fifteen years ago)
um. im not in favor of raising middle class taxes, so ... not now?
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:16 (fifteen years ago)
yeah uh now is really not a good time to raise taxes
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 06:16 (fifteen years ago)
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, November 12, 2010 1:16 AM (25 seconds ago)
uh, ever? you think the bush rates should be permanent for the middle class?
i mean look no one (alright very few people) wants an across the board increase now - the democrats' plan should be to propose an extension of the cuts for people making less than 250 thousand a year and be willing to fight the opposition tooth and nail. if this doesn't go down now i'd like to know when it's going to. certainly not in the next 4 years
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:23 (fifteen years ago)
k3v if they cant pass a plan -- with blue dog/mod R help -- then the cuts expire, which amounts to an across the board tax increase. in this debate, blue dogs have dem party by the balls.
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:29 (fifteen years ago)
http://pool.twincitiesdailyphoto.com/2007/merry_go_round-01.jpg
― J0rdan S., Friday, 12 November 2010 06:31 (fifteen years ago)
i feel like somehow we moved from boehner saying on national tv that he would vote for the obama tax plan to.... this
― J0rdan S., Friday, 12 November 2010 06:32 (fifteen years ago)
and i don't really understand why that is
― J0rdan S., Friday, 12 November 2010 06:33 (fifteen years ago)
bcuz the republican party does not give a fuck
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:34 (fifteen years ago)
deej blue dogs have nothing to do with this afaict
i'm not so sure they couldn't get a couple last minute Rs in their column. it's worth a shot. of course, if you constantly assume the worst and worry about elections that are two years away, it's harder to get things to happen
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:36 (fifteen years ago)
please find them those Rs
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 06:36 (fifteen years ago)
this whole "if only obama had BALLS maybe everything we want would be passed!!" right now meme is getting p tiresome
how do we do that ? sketch it up leonardo da vinci
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:38 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.zuguide.com/image/Tony-Cox-Bad-Santa.1.jpg
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:39 (fifteen years ago)
deej that sounds 'pretty pessimistic' maybe if you were just optimistic we could find some Rs that have been hiding under their seats for 2 years
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 06:39 (fifteen years ago)
they all talk a big game now but when it comes crunch time and people are writing to certain senators from massachusetts and maine begging them to break the filibuster or else their taxes go up, it might be a different story.
but then again republicans are scary and are the worst!! so why try
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:45 (fifteen years ago)
well, there was the argument that we should make the appearance of trying, before folding. i guess that might end up being more disappointing than if we dont? idk what the logic is in giving up now
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:51 (fifteen years ago)
i do think there is a framing issue here tho -- the dems haven't tried to use the public at all as leverage in this issue
― J0rdan S., Friday, 12 November 2010 06:58 (fifteen years ago)
that meme has only ever existed in the minds of people trying to deflect/discount valid criticism however - nobody at all is actually saying what you are fond of accusing them of saying
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 08:20 (fifteen years ago)
also dude this kind of ad-hom shit (which you go directly into as soon as you get excited on these threads)
makes you look really dumb & small & if you're not above it, you should be
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 08:27 (fifteen years ago)
by "ilxor" he meant "ilxor.com" as a whole
― "Prog", "Norwegian Prog" or maybe simply just "Racist" (crüt), Friday, 12 November 2010 08:57 (fifteen years ago)
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 06:11 (3 hours ago)
If all the tax cuts expire (which is what will happen if the Democrats fight tooth and nail as you want), there is virtually zero chance of it being framed as anything other than "Democrats raise taxes." If you really think Democrats can win with the nuanced position of "well we didn't raise taxes, you see there was this sunset provision, and we really wanted to keep the middle class tax cuts, but all the tax cuts expired at the same time so we couldn't get it passed" etc etc. vs. "OBAMA LIED AND RAISED TAXES" then I have to say that you are not "optimistic" but rather very naive.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:19 (fifteen years ago)
Would I be too much of a grownup if I pointed out that raising taxes was actually a good idea? I mean, there's a quality issue around candidates who win public office on the votes of stupid, Croc-wearing bigots who are anti-sharing their toys with anyone else, which is sort of anti the point of being a citizen anyway? Or pointing out that when we cut taxes, some other official fee or charge comes up somewhere else in people's lives that means there's no difference to what they're actually paying out to live?
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Friday, 12 November 2010 10:29 (fifteen years ago)
"If all the tax cuts expire (which is what will happen if the Democrats fight tooth and nail as you want), there is virtually zero chance of it being framed as anything other than "Democrats raise taxes."
Bullshit. But the Dems don't seem interested in taking any position that can be construed as class warfare, I gather because they're worried about their rich donors and "swing voters" who might, if the messaging is bad, read this as "taking good people's money & giving it to the undeserving".
― Euler, Friday, 12 November 2010 12:15 (fifteen years ago)
Or pointing out that when we cut taxes, some other official fee or charge comes up somewhere else in people's lives that means there's no difference to what they're actually paying out to live?
yeah god forbid a budget gets frozen, much less cut..
― Kerm, Friday, 12 November 2010 12:33 (fifteen years ago)
Why can't it be "Republicans raise taxes"? After all, they're the ones who are making tax cuts for the wealthy their make-or-break. I guess we've already decided the Dems don't have the chops necessary to succeed in communicating this?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 12:40 (fifteen years ago)
deej, a serious question: what would you consider I've-had-enough behavior?
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 12:56 (fifteen years ago)
Would I be too much of a grownup if I pointed out that raising taxes was actually a good idea?
walter mondale pointed out the same thing.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 13:02 (fifteen years ago)
deej can answer for himself but my own answer is neo-hooverism, e.g., to not have gone forward on the stimulus bill (yes, i wish it had been larger); to let the auto industry collapse; etc. that's because i saw obama's no. 1 responsibility being to pull the economy from the brink of a depression.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 13:05 (fifteen years ago)
Ha, Mondale was wrong though: Reagan had already raised taxes twice.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 13:07 (fifteen years ago)
that's true, but he didn't say it.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 13:08 (fifteen years ago)
i'm not being snarky, either, just cynical about voters.
If the Republicans make the tax cuts permanent, their campaign will be "Republicans lowered taxes." And then if the economy improves in a little under two years, they'll be all "Republicans lowered taxes and that saved the economy." And that's the illogical debate that will bandied about like a mis-engineered shuttlecock.
This past election was about the Dems losing control of the narrative, which they did pretty early on this time around, and if they can't get off the defensive, we're (I'm) in for a couple years of psychic misery. The solution is to go on the offensive, which is not the same thing as "fighting back" or being aggressive. They need to wrest control of the narrative again, since it's still theirs to write.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 12 November 2010 13:11 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, that's a legitimate risk. but i'll take it, since actually improving the economy is more important than who gets credit for it.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 13:13 (fifteen years ago)
Except if the wrong party takes credit for improving the economy and, emboldened, reverts back to the practices that lead us here, then the whole cycle begins again in a few years.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 12 November 2010 13:17 (fifteen years ago)
I don't think republicans will really be able to claim credit if the economy improves. they'd try but they'd fail, because the president gets almost all the blame and almost all the credit. most people believe that he's considerably got more influence and power than he actually has. if the economy improves in 2 years - no matter how - we're in a good spot. and for the same reason, if the tax cuts don't get passed there is absolutely no way this doesn't go down as 'obama raised taxes' rather than 'republican obstructionism led to higher taxes', especially since the narrative already is 'obama raised taxes' when we've lowered taxes.
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 13:34 (fifteen years ago)
he's considerably got more influence = he's got considerably more influence
― iatee, Friday, 12 November 2010 13:35 (fifteen years ago)
good mcclatchy article about this -
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/10/103525/temporary-extension-of-bush-era.html
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 13:42 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/12/obama.tax.cuts/index.html?hpt=T2
― J0rdan S., Friday, 12 November 2010 15:52 (fifteen years ago)
"I want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on January 1st"
say it againand againand againand againand againand againand againand againand again
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 15:55 (fifteen years ago)
Say it, say more, make clear it's not just the undeserving (cos the deserving/undeserving distinction is the key to the GOP's success with "middle America")
― Euler, Friday, 12 November 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)
the deserving/undeserving distinction is the key to the GOP's success with "middle America"
otm. this explains why a lot of GOP voters love social-security but hate welfare.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 16:10 (fifteen years ago)
(with the minor quibble that he didn't really say he's not going to cave) yeah that's a good start, keep it up
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:14 (fifteen years ago)
thing is, his track record leads us to expect him to cave
this is a Bad Thing IMO; I am really annoyed that it looks like the legacy of the first black President is shaping up to be a) national healthcare; and b) being a spineless wimp
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:21 (fifteen years ago)
ha wait when did we get national health care, maybe i love this guy after all
my favorite thing when arguing with conservative friends is when they bring up "and ugh UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE"
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:39 (fifteen years ago)
it's sort of annoying that "national/universal healthcare" doesn't actually mean what it should
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
President Obama said at a press conference in Seoul on Friday that he wants to find common ground with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts, but he repeated his talking point for not continuing the benefits for the rich.
Extending the tax breaks for the richest Americans "would be a mistake, and we cannot afford it," Obama said, adding that he hopes that "somewhere in between there, we can find some sort of solution."
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
the stupid thing that he doesn't seem to realize is that the Republicans will not compromise - they will not support raising the level to $350k or whatever, they will not support a temporary extension (which is an even worse idea), etc. What this is going to turn into, and if Obama was smart he would be preparing for this, is a massive showdown requiring strong-arm tactics.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:45 (fifteen years ago)
as he should have done on other legislative battles, he should call their bluff, force them to filibuster in the Senate to protect tax cuts for the wealthy that will drastically balloon the deficit. the Dems have the tools and the public on their side with this, they need to aggressively assume control of the narrative. now is not the time to take a posture of negotiating in good faith or whatever.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:47 (fifteen years ago)
"Here's the right interpretation -- I want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on January 1st," Obama said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G-20 Summit here. "That is my number one priority for those families and for our economy. I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number 1 priority is making sure that we are dealing with our debt and our deficit."
step it up dude. play hardball.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
YES YES & YES
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
according to the mcclatchy article dems and repubs are both psyched to punt it two years down the road because that would allow both sides to campaign on the issue in '12.. which just shows what a shadow-theater congress has become
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:50 (fifteen years ago)
If they punt now then I don't see why we should fight for Obama in two years. This is no time for mere promises.
― Euler, Friday, 12 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
in the meantime, $700 billion hole in the deficiti
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
i think it's more that congresspersons are psyched to punt, not obama
xpost yeah
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
If they punt now then I don't see why we should fight for Obama in two years.
oh - because of political realities and you want a pony, I think - fight for big D always no matter what iirc
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
the more you say this, the more ppl want to punch you
(fortunately I know you collect punches like they were Beanie Babies)
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
http://supak.com/robin/Pokemon/gotta_catch_em_all.gif
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:28 (fifteen years ago)
spinning haymaker, I choose you!
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
hahaha
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 16:47 (49 minutes ago)
The Republicans filibustered all kinds of shit and no one cared.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 12 November 2010 17:38 (fifteen years ago)
well, people will care if their taxes go up as a result of it!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
btw pertinent display name from another thread, 6 months back:
I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, April 16, 2010 9:26 PM (6 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
i'm pleasantly surprised that others on ILX take at least some geeky pleasure outta federal tax policy.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
lol dude, did you forget the context of that quote?
Would you prefer if I called it "extortion"?My point is that it is not my responsibility to make sure that your specific viewpoint is heard an acknowledged by the Democratic Party. It is yours. I am not the Democratic Party, even though I vote them about 95% of the time; I've never given one of their candidates money and I am registered as having no party affiliation. If there are things I want a candidate to do, I am going to contact his/her office directly and say so. I am not going to tell all of my friends that I am withholding any and all future support towards candidates they are considering voting for or have voted for in the past in an attempt to make them contact these people for me. This, more than anything else, is the massive problem with the way you and other dissenting posters on these threads operate; if you can convince someone via the strength of your argument that your position is superior, that's one thing, but using "well next time I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony" as the thesis behind your rhetoric is beyond infuriating.The converse argument of "if you don't vote with us, your magic pony will be slaughtered anyway" is just as bullying and just as annoying, btw. Everyone needs to get the fuck over themselves and figure out how to work together while having divergent opinions if we want to present ourselves as anything approaching a unified political voice. If that is not what we want to do, then present your positions, shut the fuck up with the emotional blackmail going both directions, and take responsibility on yourself to harangue the politicians who aren't doing what you want them to do, or are contemplating things you disagree with. Also, make sure you understand what your dealbreaker issues are and what ramifications they represent in the larger picture; if you're cool with the consequences, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine too; work to make sure those consequences don't happen. Don't bitch out your friends for having a different opinion than you.― HI DERE, Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:17 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
My point is that it is not my responsibility to make sure that your specific viewpoint is heard an acknowledged by the Democratic Party. It is yours. I am not the Democratic Party, even though I vote them about 95% of the time; I've never given one of their candidates money and I am registered as having no party affiliation. If there are things I want a candidate to do, I am going to contact his/her office directly and say so. I am not going to tell all of my friends that I am withholding any and all future support towards candidates they are considering voting for or have voted for in the past in an attempt to make them contact these people for me. This, more than anything else, is the massive problem with the way you and other dissenting posters on these threads operate; if you can convince someone via the strength of your argument that your position is superior, that's one thing, but using "well next time I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony" as the thesis behind your rhetoric is beyond infuriating.
The converse argument of "if you don't vote with us, your magic pony will be slaughtered anyway" is just as bullying and just as annoying, btw. Everyone needs to get the fuck over themselves and figure out how to work together while having divergent opinions if we want to present ourselves as anything approaching a unified political voice. If that is not what we want to do, then present your positions, shut the fuck up with the emotional blackmail going both directions, and take responsibility on yourself to harangue the politicians who aren't doing what you want them to do, or are contemplating things you disagree with. Also, make sure you understand what your dealbreaker issues are and what ramifications they represent in the larger picture; if you're cool with the consequences, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine too; work to make sure those consequences don't happen. Don't bitch out your friends for having a different opinion than you.
― HI DERE, Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:17 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:59 (fifteen years ago)
lol dude, did you forget
lol basically any question addressed to me that begins like this can be answered in the affirmative
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:01 (fifteen years ago)
Nancy Pelosi: <3
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/pelosi-gives-bush-tax-cut-compromise-the-big-n-o.php
― carson dial, Friday, 12 November 2010 18:06 (fifteen years ago)
? The Republicans never filibustered anything afaik. Reid never called their bluff. If they threatened it, the bill didn't come to a vote.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:08 (fifteen years ago)
filibusters are really tricky to pull off in practice - they essentially mean that all work grinds to a halt while a bunch of blowhards bloviate endlessly. in addition to being physically exhausting work for a bunch of lazy old white guys, this tactic rarely plays well with the public, who like to see their public servants y'know, actually working - UNLESS the issue is so insanely divisive and the majority that's trying to pass a bill does not really have strong public support.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
the real reason Reid (and most majority leaders) don't like to challenge the minority to filibuster is because they know it will essentially derail every other thing on their agenda until it's resolved, and the outcome is difficult to foresee as it is heavily reliant on how the public responds and on the endurance of the members of the chamber in attendance.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
what?
Filibuster rules changed (in the 70s, I think?) which allows someone to filibuster without stopping the other bills from going through. McCain stopped the defense bill because it repealed DADT.
― Gukbe, Friday, 12 November 2010 18:13 (fifteen years ago)
"And I remind you that those tax cuts [on rich people] have been in effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs."
YES
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:15 (fifteen years ago)
Dad wrote the congressmen here in Georgia asking them to let the tax cuts for the rich expire, mainly with the argument that if tax cuts & free money for the rich create job....well, they certainly didn't do the job over the past 2 years. He got letters from their office that basically quoted them saying they will vote on tax cut extensions for everyone.
There certainly is Class Warfare going on, only its in the other direction than what TV talking heads are repeatedly saying.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)
word
i mean at some point, don't we have to take a step back and say well, does this policy work? tax cuts for rich people, war on drugs, etc.. does it actually accomplish what its supporters say it will? at what point does a judgement get made?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
Filibuster rules changed (in the 70s, I think?) which allows someone to filibuster without stopping the other bills from going through
did not know this! thx for clarifying.
that being the case I dunno what Reid's excuse is then. I guess he is just a pussy.
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
also I thought McCain only threatened to filibuster the DADT/military spending bill and when Dems couldn't count enough votes to break it, they just dropped the bill (as is their established pattern. because they are pussies)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
The best thing the dems can do right now is make Pelosi the minority leader. She is one of the very few in this bunch who will be guaranteed to fight.
― Moodles, Friday, 12 November 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
The best thing the Dems can do is appoint me minority leader, aero as minority whip, and Morbs as ranking member of Appropriations.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
this really can't be restated enough imho
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
geez what do I get the Department of Transportation or something?
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)
I was about to say: Shakes, you can be on judiciary.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
High speed railz all round!
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:34 (fifteen years ago)
except 8 million jobs were created between 2003 and 2008...
― Kerm, Friday, 12 November 2010 18:48 (fifteen years ago)
not saying the tax cuts created those jobs alone but you can't just say "where are all these supposed jobs?" when someone can point to a BLS chart and go "right there! until Obama came!"
― Kerm, Friday, 12 November 2010 18:50 (fifteen years ago)
Most of which were part of an unsustainable bubble.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:50 (fifteen years ago)
"The Bush tax cuts created more jobs than the economy could handle!"
― Kerm, Friday, 12 November 2010 18:59 (fifteen years ago)
Can I interest you in this Tulip Bulb?
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 12 November 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, November 12, 2010 6:19 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
What do you want Reid to do? Just repeatedly call a vote and have a Republican repeatedly call for quorum? Do you think the networks would carry live coverage of them reading the roll call? It would just be a shot of an empty Senate chamber.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 12 November 2010 19:41 (fifteen years ago)
Does anyone remember the fantastic article by Packer or Gourevitch published in The New Yorker last week about the decadence of the modern Senate?
EDIT: Here it is
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
wait, "EDIT"?
how can you edit a post? this is a crucial procedural question.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 19:57 (fifteen years ago)
One of the perks of being minority leader, Daniel.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 19:58 (fifteen years ago)
damn it. i want to be able to edit my posts too.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 November 2010 19:59 (fifteen years ago)
EDIT: g-ddammit.
and not enough to keep pace with the rise in population iirc
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
i mean "the jobless recovery" post-sep 11 is pretty much a matter of record
the bush tax cuts are like this fucking zombie that keeps coming back for more.. they were conceived in 1999, during the surplus years, during the room-a-zoom zoom internet and housing bubble, as a way of "giving you your money back" since the government, like, didn't need it anymore. then the slump of 2000 hit and bush's remedy was... those tax cuts! brilliant! that obviously worked. and we're still fighting over them in two thousand fucking ten!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:11 (fifteen years ago)
A peak into what the conservative intelligentsia is debating.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:12 (fifteen years ago)
Something the Democrats could use (if they had a lick of sense):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html
― carson dial, Friday, 12 November 2010 20:22 (fifteen years ago)
'Constitutionalist' is an adjective that makes me want to hit people. Smug cretins.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
Anyone that claims they are a Constitutionalist should be forced to wear powdered wigs and stockings.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
Contemporary state governments are more the allies than the victims of the swelling federal government.
Important to note this.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)
We disagree about interpreting the Constitution. I am not some radical who rejects the Constitution's validity, I interpret it differently and it is impertinent (at the very least) to claim that your interpretation makes my politics un- or non- constitutional.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 12 November 2010 21:07 (fifteen years ago)
we are a fickle publichttp://pewresearch.org/pubs/1798/poll-less-enthusiasm-gop-2010-victory-policy-more-negative-campaign-no-compromiseThe latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Nov. 4-7 among 1,255 adults, finds 48% saying they are happy that the Republican Party won control of the House while 34% are unhappy. Four years ago, 60% said they were happy the Democrats won full control of Congress, compared with just 24% who were unhappy. That mirrored the public's reaction in December 1994 to the GOP winning control of Congress for the first time in 40 years (57% happy vs. 31% unhappy).
― kamerad, Friday, 12 November 2010 21:48 (fifteen years ago)
people are generally clueless about gov't tbrr
― goole, Friday, 12 November 2010 21:51 (fifteen years ago)
that's not exactly surprising given that unemployment is still at 9.5+ percent
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Friday, 12 November 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
makes you look really dumb & small & if you're not above it, you should be― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, November 12, 2010 2:27 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, November 12, 2010 2:27 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
dude spinsah is one of ilxor's worst posters. jus sayin
that meme has only ever existed in the minds of people trying to deflect/discount valid criticism however - nobody at all is actually saying what you are fond of accusing them of saying― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, November 12, 2010 2:20 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, November 12, 2010 2:20 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
deej, a serious question: what would you consider I've-had-enough behavior?― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, November 12, 2010 6:56 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, November 12, 2010 6:56 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Bullshit. But the Dems don't seem interested in taking any position that can be construed as class warfare, I gather because they're worried about their rich donors and "swing voters" who might, if the messaging is bad, read this as "taking good people's money & giving it to the undeserving".― Euler, Friday, November 12, 2010 6:15 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Euler, Friday, November 12, 2010 6:15 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 00:31 (fifteen years ago)
Not sure why refusing to vote against your issues is such a hated stance for you. Clearly you do care where ppl's lines in the sand are.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 13 November 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
is this a contest of 'make the other person seem angrier'? its not a 'hated stance' -- its just a boring one.
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 01:18 (fifteen years ago)
;_;
― an album fulla man down (Spinspin Sugah), Saturday, 13 November 2010 01:51 (fifteen years ago)
Im not trying to render the president's letter grade on some fucking corny newsweek magazine feature bullshit, im concerned w/ accomplishing the most than can be done.
You think there's a difference eh.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 November 2010 01:54 (fifteen years ago)
You should know by now that I don't watch cable news or am interested in the short view. I just want to know what compromises deej considers steps too far.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:00 (fifteen years ago)
doesnt that depend on a whole lot of factors & situations & timing? if he doesnt pass dadt by the end of the year, then fighting in court may have been too far. if he does, then it probably was a smart choice
why is this always a black & white thing for u dudes? the only time is now, the only principle is all of them
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:07 (fifteen years ago)
Deej do you think that Dems lost big because- after the economy - the policies passed in the past two years have been too liberal?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
i don't see how you can look beyond the economy to anything else. the economy is bad, democrats were in power, and voter dissatisfaction about the bad economy infected/strengthened their views about everything else.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:28 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah too true.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:30 (fifteen years ago)
yeah the question is - why are you so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of pushing back? If dadt doesn't get repealed by january then yeah you can admit you were wrong but like...actual peoples' civil rights have been denied. there's a little more at stake than deej's fantasy politics league
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:38 (fifteen years ago)
btw I'm a little bummed i wasn't offered a job in alfred's minority
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:43 (fifteen years ago)
i would like to be the earmark czar.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:46 (fifteen years ago)
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, November 12, 2010 8:26 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
not at all
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:54 (fifteen years ago)
not liberal enough. but the question is 'how do we effectively accomplish more goals' not 'how do we fall on our swords behind our principles'
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:55 (fifteen years ago)
to the extent i understand this wacky argument, i think deej is sorta right. the dems need their more conservative senators / states to remain competitive on a national scale. those senators represent wealthy voters -- people who may not even be racist! -- who don't want to see their taxes go up. the pols can't campaign or vote against the bush tax cuts or they'll get voted out. so the dems have a choice: they can retain the blue dogs & make painfully incremental progressive changes. or they can drop off the national stage altogether. that might be your cuppa tea, but it doesn't have to be everybody's. i don't think it's obama's.
― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:55 (fifteen years ago)
so obama can't go around drawing too many lines in the sand. he has an itsy bitsy amount of wiggle room.
― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:04 (fifteen years ago)
hahahaha just want to point out that these are the kind of people running your party^^^^, gnight
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:06 (fifteen years ago)
yep, health care, pretty darn funny.
― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:09 (fifteen years ago)
those senators represent wealthy voters -- people who may not even be racist! -- who don't want to see their taxes go up.
People who think that "Thou shalt not raise taxes on anyone for any reason" was brought on a stone tablet from Mount Sinai are people who are totally incapable of taking the long view. We have to raise taxes. We just do. If Americans and especially American politicians are totally incapable of admitting this, and if everyone keeps pretending that not ever raising taxes for any reason is a reasonable, centrist point of view, then we really are fucked as a country. Not only will our debts never be paid, our infrastructure will crumble. We'll be a shell of our former power. A densely populated country that doesn't know how to care for its own people. We'll be a joke and a shame.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:13 (fifteen years ago)
And it could have all been prevented by growing the fuck up and taxing people properly.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:16 (fifteen years ago)
raising taxes during a recession is a really tough sell.
― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:17 (fifteen years ago)
haha, let's not even go for it then! whatever the republicans want, i agree!
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:19 (fifteen years ago)
Fuck selling it to the taxpayers. Congressman and Senators KNOW that what I say is the plain old truth, but they'd rather have a job for a little bit longer than suck it up, hold hands, and raise taxes. These guys can spin anything, all they have to do is tell the same story to their constituents.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:20 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGxNTQPdk8c
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:24 (fifteen years ago)
Reagan raised taxes like a mofo. But he spun it.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:27 (fifteen years ago)
Weirdly, Obama hes lowered taxes, and no one believes it. Go figure that one out.
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:30 (fifteen years ago)
i dont actually agree w/ sang freud entirely -- i dont think its 'rich people' we want on our side, or that we need to always compromise & elect blue dogs. sometimes its right to have an aggressive, party line state of mind about it. i just want the ppl who basically only post here to malign obama for everything wrong w/ the american political institution to get into detail about why they think the line is drawn here and not somewhere else
at some level im just doing devil's advocate bcuz its a lot less boring to have SOME good ideas come out of this instead of us all backpatting for jumping off the obama train earlier
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 03:53 (fifteen years ago)
the pols can't campaign or vote against the bush tax cuts or they'll get voted out
It's not a matter of being voted out, as polls have pretty much been split evenly, close to 50/50 for/against the tax cuts. Part of my reluctance towards the Dems is that on this matter they seem to have bought into the idea that 2% of the population should have a much larger voice in the matter.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/20/100872/poll-americans-split-evenly-on.html
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 13 November 2010 06:47 (fifteen years ago)
really? its the same thing you've been repeating ad naseaum since he let a moderate conservative minister say stuff at his inauguration. oh i guess a more accurate way of articulating your position would be "more would be passed or we would go down in flames repping for what we believe in, fuck optics" which is also a horrible strategy of actually accomplishing shit although i bet it makes you feel really good inside
more mindless ad-homs from a guy who has run out of road & declared bankrupty on the ethics dept. -- great look dude, I know I for one am v. inspired by it
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 13 November 2010 09:29 (fifteen years ago)
gotta love "moderate conservative minister" as sub for "homophobic asshole who actively campaigned to oppose basic rights" though -- you are def. in the right camp & welcome to it, always willing to see the glass half full when it suits your purposes
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 13 November 2010 09:31 (fifteen years ago)
the sarcasm is getting thick in here, batman!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:40 (fifteen years ago)
can you all stop this poisonous round-and-round? PLEASE? it's the weekend.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:41 (fifteen years ago)
or least make it an argument about something specific.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:42 (fifteen years ago)
its not just 'swing voters' who dont think we should give money to welfare queens -- its lots of racisty moderates, who we are also going to have to get votes from, if we ever want our views represented. that means messaging that appeals to those ppl (and these ppl are racist in some ways but not others ... i bet you theres a big overlap btween "ugh, welfare queens!" & the big GWB backlash after katrina)
Right, so the issue isn't the alleged racism of these "moderates". They believe that hard work should be rewarded (rather than their accomplishments, mind you, since most people never accomplish anything of note), and laziness should not be rewarded. Our Corporate Masters work hard, they think, and so they deserve to be well-paid. They think that poor people don't work hard, since in the USA if you work hard you can make a living. These moderates thus see "social justice" as enabling cheating, to be rewarded without having earned it through hard work.
If I were a politician, I would hammer the point that Our Corporate Masters are cheaters on a much larger scale. I would not play up the "poor people work hard too" angle because the jury is sadly already out on that one. Go on the attack against American corporate capitalism. But then I would not be a mainstream Democrat!
― Euler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:44 (fifteen years ago)
right; you'd be a populist.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:52 (fifteen years ago)
do we wanna reward the fat cats who got us into this mess, or the little guy who works hard and plays by the rules? doesn't seem like rocket science but whaddo i know
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 13 November 2010 13:50 (fifteen years ago)
right; the "played by the rules" narrative would be powerful; just keep hammering it home! On the other hand, it's not clear that the kind of foreclosure relief that left-leaning people seem to support fits that narrative.
― Euler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 14:28 (fifteen years ago)
it would be; but would people believe it? the problem remains it's hard to talk tough about the fat cats after having appointed a bunch of bob rubin people to the fed and treasury. still not sure if obama was a sucker for doing that. maybe the financial lobby is so powerful he couldn't have gotten other people confirmed in the senate. but whatever, it's not like he went from hank paulson and ben bernanke to joseph stiglitz and paul krugman
― kamerad, Saturday, 13 November 2010 14:31 (fifteen years ago)
honest and admittedly embarrassing question: all the years I paid taxes in any meaningful way (post college, pre med school) they were low enough that I noticed no burden whatsoever, and even raising them a few percent would have done little to my bottom line* as a single 20something male. so I guess I'm wondering of the home owning kid having genuinely middle class ilxors: if taxes went up a bit (or didn't expire or w/e), how acutely would you feel it? I've always had a vague and unfounded feeling that until you're making quite a bit of money, fluctuations in the tax rate aren't going to be terribly meaningful at the level of the individual taxpayer. cf the interest rate on my savings account. even if it jumped like 3% I wouldn't notice cuz u kno there aint much in it
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 13 November 2010 15:30 (fifteen years ago)
I probably wouldn't feel the rise either, but admittedly this chatter about eliminating the mortgage deduction would be a bummer.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 November 2010 15:37 (fifteen years ago)
which is the point i guess of a progressive tax spread out over millions of ppl right? little changes are largely unfelt by the majority. though any hike has the perverse effect of "hitting" those most well equipped to oppose it.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 13 November 2010 15:46 (fifteen years ago)
Our taxes are so low that we generally get paid by the USA gov---I think this is possible, no? We have 3 kids & have a mortgage on a home, & my academic salary is presently really low. We're the tax freeloaders that GOPers complain about, like I'm sure their intended tax "reforms" would have me paying more.
― Euler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:10 (fifteen years ago)
lol the ''works hard and plays by the rules'' line is -- almost verbatim -- a freqently-used bill clinton slogan.
90s due for a comeback, i suppose.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
The 90s are gonna make the 60s look like the 50s.
― Euler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:38 (fifteen years ago)
nick clegg has recently been using that phrase in the UK to lambast "benefit scroungers" so ymmv I guess
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
what an indictment of the 90s (the 60s sound dreadful -- all that beatles music!)
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:57 (fifteen years ago)
We all want to change the world.
― Euler, Saturday, 13 November 2010 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
. . . into an octopus' garden.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
(blech)
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)
personally, i didn't really start noticing (and bitching) about taxes until after law school. even now, though, the most neddlesome taxes aren't federal but state taxes -- particularly local property taxes (yay the fiscal black hole that is the State of New Jersey, its countless municipalities and petty political bosses).
it's debatable that such people are middle-class, but if the estate tax comes roaring back to life in 2011 then people with estates of $1M ($2M if married) will have to worry about that.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Saturday, 13 November 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
and here's one way how Our Better People are trying to convince The Rest of Us that our national debt is a Very Serious Thing and we should sit down and take our medicine ... or something.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Saturday, 13 November 2010 19:47 (fifteen years ago)
Meanwhile the Dem's response to Eric Cantor's nonsense is another test of their capacity to lead.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 November 2010 19:48 (fifteen years ago)
eric cantor is a twerp. i pray he becomes the face of the republican party.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 20:47 (fifteen years ago)
Eric Cantor - traitor and hypocrite.
Its a real simple message, and powerful too. The dems would be idiotic not to run with it - its so ripe for political hay its already bundled itself into bales...
― The Porcupine Captain With A Crew of White Rabbits (Viceroy), Saturday, 13 November 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
oh, there have been so many GOP talking points/twerps that the Dems could've turned into political hay if they had a lick of sense. remember Bobby Jindal?
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Saturday, 13 November 2010 21:02 (fifteen years ago)
oh yeah that guy.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 13 November 2010 21:16 (fifteen years ago)
euler i dont think you get the point -- of course dems should be doing something to counter that narrative. the question is how do they reshape that narrative. i dont know that denying that some people are lazy is really effective. some people are lazy! some people do get by without doing work! i think a smarter way to frame the tax debate might be in for example calling it a 'ladder' or something -- implying that reducing the tax rates and making them slide up gradually would design our system to enable people to climb the ladder rather of economic success rather than feeling stuck where they are
the idea of work + talent = economic success is way too embedded in the national myth to deny it, to turn it into 'us' poor people fighting 'them' greedy capitalist barons. that doesn't mean that the content of the argument needs to change -- just that im not sure that a lot of middle - lower class ppl like being identified with that lazy cousin who wont get off the couch and get a job
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
like, its not about changing the actual tax plan the dems want to enact to make it 'more moderate' -- its about changing the framing of the argument so more moderate/swing votes might be more sympathetic to it
it doesnt have to be non-stop war all the time. *and its this argument that i think obama understands* -- i mean, we got health care, right? financial reform? yeah they were weakened, maybe there were better ways to frame those arguments, but at the very least its more than clinton accomplished in 8 years done in two
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Saturday, 13 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
oh, just shut the fuck up already
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Sunday, 14 November 2010 00:51 (fifteen years ago)
4 real
― whats goin on witchu iron mane (deej), Sunday, 14 November 2010 00:52 (fifteen years ago)
Various (Broder, Millbank, someone else) W. Post columnists are all embracing the Alan Simpson/Erskine Bowles deficit plan and urging Obama to triangulate, endorse it and make it happen. These guys love to embrace anything they can call neutral, whether it is or not.
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 14 November 2010 22:43 (fifteen years ago)
i can understand why giants are losing this one too. they've been playing well, but certainly not at the level the hype had build to (did everyone forget Peyton totally blowing them out or Eli taking weeks to start completing passes?) and the Cowboys were playing bad but also not at the level the hype had build to (it's not like they're the panthers). i bet giants buck up tho and come out of the second half + play to win.
― Mordy, Sunday, 14 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
wish NYG were running for president in 2012.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 14 November 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
lol. wrong thread.
― Mordy, Sunday, 14 November 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
fun!!!
funny enough taking a pretty doctrinaire liberal line balances the budget w/o much trouble. taxes back to the clinton years! reduce military commitments! fix medicare! presto.
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 04:55 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14FOB-idealab-t.html?pagewanted=print
nothing new here but it's a good piece of writing
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 17:08 (fifteen years ago)
During the recession of 1981-82, Democratic politicians demanded that a Republican president set a balanced budget as his top priority. Ronald Reagan disregarded this advice. He held firm to his tax cuts: once the economy returned to prosperity, there would be time then to deal with the deficit.
Slippery passive voice construction allows him to elide the fact that Reagan never did "deal with the deficit."
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 15 November 2010 17:14 (fifteen years ago)
I'm a genius
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=43t8d6nl
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Monday, 15 November 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
Yes, although, that said:
http://motherjones.com/files/images/blog_deficit_cbpp.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 15 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
today's outrage:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2010/11/braun_heroic_nj_teacher_was_sa.html
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
seriously someone kill that kid
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, him getting hit by a truck would be for the best.
― romoing my damn eyes (Nicole), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
O'Keefe continues to ruin people's lives; be the darling of the Tea Party. Get's slaps on the wrist for what ought to be serious jail time for fraud and criminal mayhem.
Thirding the death wish sentiment.
― The Porcupine Captain With A Crew of White Rabbits (Viceroy), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
Jesus fuck he went after a special ed teacher? Does this kid have no soul?
― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:33 (fifteen years ago)
Barbara Bush is perhaps a little stranger than I thought
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:35 (fifteen years ago)
She has always struck me as being very demented and bitchy.
― romoing my damn eyes (Nicole), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
lol @ "perhaps"
that is simultaneously insane and understandable
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:37 (fifteen years ago)
James O'Keefe is srsly one of the worst people in the world.
― (ಠ▃ಠ)o ((cloud)) (crüt), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:38 (fifteen years ago)
He'll get his own show on Fox News eventually.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 15 November 2010 21:45 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, jesus, that's a fucked up story
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
the o'keefe one
tbf so is the Barbara Bush story
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:47 (fifteen years ago)
yeah judging by the url bush-abortion-fetus-jar i'd agree
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:48 (fifteen years ago)
WHo just keeps their miscarriages around in jars? "Here's your 'brother,' son."
― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:49 (fifteen years ago)
I hope they kept a place at the dinner table for him
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:51 (fifteen years ago)
my gutter political instincts are to make fun of this, cos it is pretty weird.
but on the other hand, miscarriage ain't no joke. it's really hard on ppl. and mama bush is nominally pro-choice anyway!
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
more than nominally, based on that quote
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:55 (fifteen years ago)
The story ran in last Monday's NYT, I think.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 15 November 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)
interesting
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 15 November 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
writing that e-mail to Anita Hill maybe ruffled a few feathers eh
“protecting America’s founding principles through education, civil discourse and citizen activism. Our goal is to equip citizen leaders to lobby for liberty in as little as 3 – 5 minutes a day.”
lol it's like a tv workout program
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 22:03 (fifteen years ago)
aside from folks like rove and dick armey who do both, there are in-front-of-camera conservative activists and then behind the scenes folks; i think the group mrs. thomas was fronting didn't really want to become the former
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
I want to see a remake of Basket Case where the main characters are W. and his jar brother.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 15 November 2010 22:07 (fifteen years ago)
huh
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Monday, 15 November 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
obama-style negotiation trickling down to the interest groups now, i guess
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 15 November 2010 23:23 (fifteen years ago)
i'd bet gay servicepeople are a little more conservative than gays in general
― goole, Monday, 15 November 2010 23:25 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i believe that
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 15 November 2010 23:28 (fifteen years ago)
on the one hand, instinctively my position is "people in the military have a better idea of what's good for the military than civilians"
on the other, k3vin otm, the general trend toward "temporarily" sacrificing principle for breadcrumbs is just so fucking pathetic & won't result in the longer-term gains that proponents of this strategy imagine; giving discursive ground has long-term, catastrophic consequences (vide the ground lost, and real effects on real women, with regard to abortion services)
― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 15 November 2010 23:42 (fifteen years ago)
huh I had no idea a blobfish could backpedal
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 00:28 (fifteen years ago)
lol @ anybody being surprised about gays in the military not putting being out as their top priority
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 00:29 (fifteen years ago)
number 1 priority for anybody in the military = don't get killed
lol. interesting to see if this is (a) a sop to the tea-party, but the GOP's regular policy (tr: non tea-party) positions will otherwise dominate or (b) a sign of things-to-come, with the tea party wing driving the GOP (hopefully off a cliff).
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 16 November 2010 00:31 (fifteen years ago)
actual policy is probably immaterial - this is purely cynical political calculus for Sen. Blobfish - ie, it's worth more to him to help his party cause this headache for the Democrats than it is to bring the pork back to Kentucky (where he just won reelection and won't have to worry about it for awhile)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 00:33 (fifteen years ago)
the GOP going through with this means that they can attempt to drive a wedge between Obama and the Senate Democrats (who won't want to give up their earmarks)
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 00:34 (fifteen years ago)
(as it says in that article lol)
about DADT...i mean this does absolutely nothing to validate the position that a repeal may harm military readiness or that people' rights need to be granted in an "orderly fashion" - all this does is make it an even harder sell politically. i'll refrain from saying "fuck these guys" because as a bleeding liberal part of me empathizes deeply with someone so utterly bereft of self-respect after years of having to pretend they're someone else that they're ok with selling out their rights and dignity for job security. i have no idea what that's like
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
i know that might sound paternalistic but...thats what this is
and i mean like...coming out and saying that is so completely useless, counterproductive even. a defense bill is going to pass...it just fucking is. dems could force repubs to pass this or nothing - i'd love to see R's justifying refusing to vote for a defense bill at the eleventh hour over this. it'll be a clusterfuck for sure, but one dems can control.
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
If the Dems do force a vote on DADT into the defense budget bill, expect loads of outrage over the "cramming of this deviant policy down our throats". Do not titter when you hear this.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 01:52 (fifteen years ago)
Too late.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 01:56 (fifteen years ago)
yeah of course i'd expect nothing less - available responses include "whatever, i fuckin dare you to not vote for funding our troops" or "ahhhh alright fine"
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 01:57 (fifteen years ago)
"cramming of this deviant policy down our throats"
my dad in iowa got robocalls from pete king saying exactly this for the campaign to remove the supreme court judges
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 02:16 (fifteen years ago)
― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn) Monday, November 8, 2010 11:19 AM
"It" meaning Inside Job...Frederick Wiseman's as far removed from Michael Moore as you can imagine; I found Inside Job to be more or less in the neighborhood. Anytime the director--I assume it was the director conducting the interviews--injects himself into the film as a noble David taking on the evil Goliaths, that's Moore. (Ferguson's never on-screen, but the theatrical disbelief in some of his questions nonetheless calls attention to himself.) That's not really a criticism, I just don't see Ferguson's movie as being significantly different than what Moore does.
I still have a hard time getting my head around default credit swaps and CDOs (and I'm a math guy). Obama does not come off well.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 12:59 (fifteen years ago)
on that lovely deficit commission:
http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/when-they-say-everyone-must-sacrifice-they-mean-poor-people
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 13:01 (fifteen years ago)
Mr. Rubio Goes To Washington, and gets his first lesson.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 14:01 (fifteen years ago)
When ideology meets reality: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/freshman-goper-hey-wheres-my-health-care.php
Maryland physician Andy Harris (R) just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care?According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.
According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 14:38 (fifteen years ago)
Marco Rubio already is 10th in line when it comes to potential Republican presidqential candidates for 2012, according to one newspaper ranking.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 16 November 2010 14:39 (fifteen years ago)
Rep. Michele Bachmann supports a ban on earmarks in Congress, but she thinks that some transportation projects should redefined so they aren’t considered earmarks.
Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a “redefinition” of what an earmark is, because, she said: “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”
“I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark,” Bachmann said. “There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.”
RIP tea pot museum
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
IOW "I am self-aware enough to understand that I am a massive hypocrite"
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:28 (fifteen years ago)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/murkowski-attacks-palin/#more-135562
meanwhile, lol
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/16/rangel.ethics.hearing/index.html
also lol, if I'm being honest with myself
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:37 (fifteen years ago)
I got over debating whether Bachmann is an idiot or a flaming hypocrite a long time ago; it's immaterial.
all this does is make it an even harder sell politically.
Completely disagree. It makes McCain look like a pandering bigot while gay servicemen and women put America first.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
i think she's certifiable, which is why it's kind of interesting (kind of); another example of "she so crazy" wasn't why i posted that!
even with someone like her, more around the bend than any other pol i can think of, the rubber of district needs hits the road of appropriations at some point. you think that might illustrate something, but it won't. congress raising revenue and spending it, not necessarily tyranny!
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
if Murkowski becomes a swing vote in the Senate, I will lol
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
i don't understand why today's strapping young entrepreneurs can't build the roads and bridges in bachmann's district. is she some kind of communist?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
Michael White OTM
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 20:21 (fifteen years ago)
White House is shocked why exactly?
are they STILL not aware that the GOP's sole goal is to deny him anything he can call a personal accomplishment?
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
hard to accept that they could be that naive. i used to assume capitulation was all part of some master plan. who can say anymore. william greider claims o doesn't know how to use his powerhttp://www.thenation.com/article/156384/obama-without-tearsWhat's missing with this president is power—a strong grasp of the powers he possesses and the willingness to govern the country with them.
― kamerad, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 21:41 (fifteen years ago)
it's like he doesn't grasp that the other side is a) not reasonable and b) has no interest in actually governing
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QjQyXoZjMDg/TC_CBiiSzlI/AAAAAAAAAds/8LJ8mE-iPns/s1600/lucy+football.jpg
L-R GOP, Obama
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
he seems alternately 1) too stuck up to bother getting his hands dirty 2) like he's never had to deal with asshole bullies in his life and 2.5) hopelessly naive about how spiteful and destructive the GOP is
― kamerad, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 21:47 (fifteen years ago)
Someone got snotty on the Obama flaws thread about the recent Bromwich piece, but I haven't read a decent rebuttal.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 21:59 (fifteen years ago)
"someone" ie Tracer Hand? don't be a dick
my problem with it is reliance on bob woodward's book as a primary source, but it's not like i was there either. that, and the stance that he "doesn't want to fight" or "gives up on stuff because secretly he doesn't give a fuck and just wants to fit in" is of the same species as "he's playing a long game" or the "11th dimensional chess". i don't know if we have to suss out motivation to understand what's happening.
i think the best explanation is the simplest: he's getting beaten. the exact story changes issue by issue, but the basic outline looks like this: obama/obama voters want x done, other group of people don't want x done at all, they resist, resistance basically wins, or loses by exacting key demands.
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
Or an even simpler explanation: what he wants aligns with his concessions.
― Euler, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:14 (fifteen years ago)
Not my intention -- I'm at work and didn't have time at the moment to search for the thread. My apologies.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:17 (fifteen years ago)
I'm less attracted to motivation than basic analysis, i.e. this is how Obama's actions twenty months later looks like to me.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:18 (fifteen years ago)
*look
ha no problem
i could have let the man himself object i guess
Euler: very well could be right
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:18 (fifteen years ago)
ha, more bromwich, this is recent
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/rebel-germ/?pagination=false&printpage=true
about the opposition
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:31 (fifteen years ago)
this is so awesome
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/senate-leader-deals-blow-to-president-on-arms-treaty/?hp
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
yeah...
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:42 (fifteen years ago)
Looking back, one feels it was an astonishing negligence for the Obama White House to embark on a campaign for national health care without a solid strategy for fighting the tenacious opposition it could expect at the hands of Fox radio and TV. Month by month the jeering hosts ate away Obama’s popularity and cast doubt on his plans. His response was to go on TV talk shows himself, and out to multiple town meeting Q-and-As, but the format there was inferior, the effect diffuse, the audience always uncertain of the connection between the President’s words and his final policy. Also, by appearing to compete as a talker against the very people he scorned to recognize, Obama may have squandered some part of the luster of his office. You can get in the ring with your opponent or you can dismiss him from a dignified height. You can’t do both.
“Obamacare must be repealed.” That will be the cry of a significant section of the new Congress. “People talk about making things too simplistic,” said Limbaugh on September 23. “No, we make the complex understandable.” On the same day he gave a reason why Blue Dog Democrats were the enemy, too: “We’re not pussyfooting around here. They got a (D) next to their name, it’s history.” The stance of total hostility is unscrupulous, and if it became the norm, it could never lead back to a civilized politics. But the speaker of those words showed a desire for his party to win because politics is built up from the work of parties. It is not clear that President Obama has yet felt the same conviction.
― goole, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 23:07 (fifteen years ago)
starting to feel like this presidency is the sequel to ellison's invisible man. lots of great speeches and everything
― kamerad, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 23:11 (fifteen years ago)
Obama even dabbled in revolutionary politics.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)
this is interesting
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/jeff-goldberg-agrees-glenn-greenwald-anwar-al-awlaki
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 16 November 2010 23:22 (fifteen years ago)
maybe it was me, and maybe "novelistic mindreading" is snotty, but i've never cared for these monday-morning quaterbacking pieces about optics. it just feels like pissing into the wind. why not write something in real-time? one possible answer: that would be risk being wrong.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 14:18 (fifteen years ago)
Bromwich's essay doesn't concern itself with "optics" though.
― otherwise, and twat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 14:30 (fifteen years ago)
"This is what Obama's done, what he said he was going to do, and how I'm grading him so far."
well it's this kind of thing: "by appearing to compete as a talker against the very people he scorned to recognize, Obama may have squandered some part of the luster of his office" etc etc
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-16/fox-news-chairman-roger-ailes-slams-white-house-in-exclusive-interview/
None of this is personal, you understand. Ailes says he likes Obama, who was gracious to him during last year’s Christmas party, and David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. He recently had breakfast with Axelrod to discuss Fox’s coverage. But Ailes took an unprovoked swipe at Robert Gibbs, saying the press secretary “is a little big for his britches” and “will end up like that little shithead who worked for Bush”—meaning Scott McClellan, the onetime loyalist who wrote a book criticizing his former boss. Gibbs and the White House declined to respond.
― Cunga, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)
What about Beck’s other inflammatory outbursts, such as calling Obama a racist? Ailes says that everyone who ad libs for a living makes mistakes. But admits to asking Beck to watch his tone: “He and I have had conversations and lunches where I say, ‘What the hell are you doing, man?’…Beck trashes Republicans every night. I’ve said to him, ‘Where the hell are you going to get your audience if you keep this up? You’re trashing everyone.’”
Beck takes such criticism well, Ailes explains, “because he’s so intelligent and basically sensitive.”
There’s one criticism that Ailes doesn’t want to hear. He admonished the staff after unnamed Fox journalists told me they are worried that the divisive Beck is becoming the face of the network.
“Yeah, shut up,” says Ailes. “You’re getting a paycheck. Go on the team or get off the team. Don’t run around here badmouthing a colleague.”
― Cunga, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)
why do you care what this cretin has to say?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)
Morbs OTM
― Baron Strange of Knockin (DJP), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 18:47 (fifteen years ago)
because he makes the parallel universe conservatives live in? or is that too obvious an answer.
― goole, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:00 (fifteen years ago)
recheck the ratings of Fox News
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:04 (fifteen years ago)
yes i know, ratings for all cable are always low. its an incubator.
― goole, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)
who makes the nazis-uh
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:14 (fifteen years ago)
this is a really fucked up development:
both base level (palin etc) and egghead conservatives have come out against the latest round of quantitative easing:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/noam-scheiber-on-palin-vs-fed/http://economics21.org/commentary/e21s-open-letter-ben-bernanke
and these two items came out within a day of each other:
david brooks can write this sentence:
Many of the psychologists, artists and moral philosophers I know are liberal, so it seems strange that American liberalism should adopt an economic philosophy that excludes psychology, emotion and morality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
while mike pence comes out with this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253410/pence-end-feds-dual-mandate-daniel-foster
The Federal Reserve should focus solely on controlling inflation. Unemployment is a matter of great seriousness to the American people, but it is the job of the Congress and the President to put forth pro-growth policies on taxes, to rein in government spending, and to reduce the regulatory burden in order to create an environment that is friendly to our nation’s job creators and that sustains long-term employment.
solving persistent 10% unemployment isn't a moral problem, and... we shouldn't do it anyway.
― goole, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)
pelosi elected minority leader
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40231408/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
― max, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:39 (fifteen years ago)
in case youre wondering why we cant have nice things:
Tuesday's events offered scant evidence that Democrats, who often quarrel among themselves, will become more cohesive in the wake of their 60-seat House loss.
Shuler, for instance, showed no interest in mimicking the solidarity that House Republicans displayed during the past four years, when they voted unanimously or nearly unanimously against many high-profile initiatives by Democrats, including Obama.
"It's very frustrating when I see everyone voting in bloc," Shuler told reporters, because Americans are diverse and crave bipartisan solutions.
lolololol
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
Heath Shuler is about as good a politician as he was a quarterback.
and i'd LOL @ Teabagger economic imbecility, were it not for the fact that these bozos are now in a position to ACT upon their imbecilic mind farts.
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
it is the job of the Congress and the President to put forth pro-growth policies on taxes
Could SOME non-spineless Dems keep repeating (until they're blue in the face) please:
The Bush tax cuts already exist and ARE NOT CREATING GROWTH.
― Blastfemur (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:55 (fifteen years ago)
yay nancy
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:55 (fifteen years ago)
Mark E. Smith lyrics/references make me laff harder than I should
― Cunga, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 19:57 (fifteen years ago)
^^^this guy is a goddamned moron who does not understand how Congress works
― the Whiney G. Weingarten Memorial 77 Clique (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" in any statement and get the real intended effect
― goole, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:09 (fifteen years ago)
thanking you
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:13 (fifteen years ago)
goole you may have revolutionized craigslist hookup postings
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:14 (fifteen years ago)
swm seeking bipartisan solutions, plz no fatties
― glengarry glenn danzig (latebloomer), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:17 (fifteen years ago)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/sens-bayh-graham-seek-bipartisan-solutions/1
― goole, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:17 (fifteen years ago)
i wonder how Ryan Leaf or Andre Ware would've done if they had been elected to the House ...
― Exterminate Capitalism Lobster Package (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:19 (fifteen years ago)
Leaf would have tried to legalize meth.
― Euler, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:24 (fifteen years ago)
I hear the Louisiana state legislature wants to bring JaMarcus Russell in for a workout.
― Cunga, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)
The memory of the New Orleans Saints quarterbacks being Heath Schuler, Billy Joe Tolliver and Billy Joe Hobert still has the power to depress me.
― Cunga, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 20:29 (fifteen years ago)
I blame Dubya for this
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 23:38 (fifteen years ago)
if we had just arrested this guy, given him due process, NOT TORTURED HIM, and sent him to trial, he would've been found guilty of much more. instead, Dubya's invented-from-whole-cloth legal strategy basically fucked up the chances of ever actually bringing any Gitmo detainees like this guy to justice.
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
yup
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
Obama's basically in a no-win situation legally with these guys - the obvious goal is to get them to trial, close the base, and resolve all these open issues, but basically bringing them to trial more often than not is just gonna result in a lot of minimal convictions and releases
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 23:55 (fifteen years ago)
General Motors stock goes back onto the market tomorrow, and more and more it looks like the bailout was the right move. To honor the occasion, some key Republican figures--including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, William Kristol, and the Alaskan woman--will be holding a joint press conference tomorrow afternoon to give due credit to the president. From their prepared text: "We want to acknowledge that in this one isolated instance, the President's communistic policies appear to have yielded satisfactory results. If anything further should develop that brings this fortunate turn of events into question, we will keep you apprised."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 23:58 (fifteen years ago)
can't front - this is awesome.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/17/new-rules-require-equal-visitation-rights-all-patients
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 18 November 2010 00:27 (fifteen years ago)
yes!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 18 November 2010 11:53 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Cartoons/2010/February/~/media/Images/KHN%20Features/2010/February/14%2020/cartoons/Negotiation512.jpg?w=512&h=409&as=1
The judge himself recognized the significance of excluding the witness when he said in his ruling that Mr. Ghailani’s status of “enemy combatant” probably would permit his detention as something akin “to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end, even if he were found not guilty.”
― Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 18 November 2010 12:20 (fifteen years ago)
i feel like that's poorly written - what does the judge's quote have to do with excluding the witness identified via torture?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 18 November 2010 12:33 (fifteen years ago)
In a letter to soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Democrats urged Republicans to stick to their principles opposing government-run health care and give up their own congressional health care plan.
“You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don't happen to be Members of Congress," wrote Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY). “If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk.”
Crowley's letter was signed by three other Democrats: Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA). Politico's Glenn Thrush, who first reported on the letter, describes them as "fierce defenders of President Obama’s health care reforms."
― max, Thursday, 18 November 2010 15:50 (fifteen years ago)
Teabagger bozos are now in a position to ACT upon their imbecilic mind farts.
only because the Dems can't even act like an effective OPPOSITION party when they control the Senate and the executive
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 18 November 2010 15:59 (fifteen years ago)
That letter is silly. GOP leadership, & I think most of their supporters, think that they deserve affordable health care but that many other Americans don't. The point to press should be: you are selfish elitists. Much of the GOP base is happy to be called that, but I don't think enough to dominate America politically---yet.
― Euler, Thursday, 18 November 2010 16:16 (fifteen years ago)
crowley's my congressperson, I dislike him less now
― iatee, Thursday, 18 November 2010 16:17 (fifteen years ago)
the judge rationalized that, even if his exclusion of the witness meant this bad guy doesn't get convicted, it won't matter because he'll remain a prisoner under any circumstances.
― Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 18 November 2010 17:02 (fifteen years ago)
now THAT'S justice lol
"even if you're innocent, you are still guilty"
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 November 2010 17:07 (fifteen years ago)
well not quite
"even if you are innocent, we can still detain you because lol neverending war"
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Thursday, 18 November 2010 17:09 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, I was gonna say...
until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban enduntil hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban enduntil hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban enduntil hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end
― Blastfemur (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 18 November 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/in-which-we-survey-30-conservative-economists-on-how-to-fix-the-economy-1-survey-qa/
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/in-which-we-survey-30-conservative-economists-on-how-to-fix-the-economy-2-bring-your-own-solutions/
both of these are pretty enlightening in a grim way. i could've put these in the shitbin thread or the plutocracy thread, but since their answers are highly politicized (even tho you can tell none of them think so) it goes here
― goole, Thursday, 18 November 2010 18:31 (fifteen years ago)
http://privilegedenyingdude.tumblr.com/
:)
― goole, Thursday, 18 November 2010 19:50 (fifteen years ago)
:D
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 18 November 2010 21:41 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 November 2010 22:17 (fifteen years ago)
35 or 40 things apparently, most of them kinda minor
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 November 2010 22:21 (fifteen years ago)
Senate to vote on DADT repeal next week
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 19 November 2010 00:28 (fifteen years ago)
v. genuinely hope i get to say 'i told you so' on this one, if only bcuz then ... well, best outcome
― smangs of new york (deej), Friday, 19 November 2010 01:10 (fifteen years ago)
I genuinely hope to say "You were right."
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 19 November 2010 01:22 (fifteen years ago)
i'll never say that but i hope it passes
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Friday, 19 November 2010 04:25 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/11/09/the-mandate/
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 19 November 2010 17:13 (fifteen years ago)
That list reads like the second-to-last chapter of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which I guess means that we're on the verge of being raped and pillaged by huns.Well, shit.
Well, shit.
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Friday, 19 November 2010 17:17 (fifteen years ago)
Wait till the Ostrogoths hear about this.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 19 November 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
lolooool
― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Friday, 19 November 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.themorningstarr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/goths.jpg
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 19 November 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
Pointing out what a spectacle the new and improved Newsweek has become is a weekly thing, but has anyone noticed Meacham and his boys have trotted out yet another issue about how the modern presidency is too much for one person? Clinton, Reagan, and Carter each got one after their respective shellackings.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 19 November 2010 17:52 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, sitting back and saying nothing about what should be in the healthcare bill for a year really sucks up one's days
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 19 November 2010 18:03 (fifteen years ago)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/how_should_obama_handle_gop.html
this strikes me as wishful thinking more than anything
― goole, Friday, 19 November 2010 18:20 (fifteen years ago)
how the modern presidency is too much for one person?
The Romans experimented quite a bit with this problem, with the most powerful factional leaders forming ad hoc triumvirates during the late Republic; during the Empire they also tried splitting up the emperor's duties, sometimes with co-emperors, or else with junior emperors (called Caesars). They were all pretty nasty in terms of results.
― Aimless, Friday, 19 November 2010 18:55 (fifteen years ago)
The triumvirates were symptomatic of the failure of the now larger Republic to maintain political cohesion and the co-emperors were just desperation in the face of relentless assaults from multiple directions.
The president does have a cabinet and a VP, after all.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Friday, 19 November 2010 19:35 (fifteen years ago)
my eyes popped out of my head a little when I saw this:
For now, her plan for the caucus “is to start weekly classes on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” inviting everyone from Supreme Court justices to legal scholars to speak.
“As we’re studying every week, let’s say for instance the commerce clause, then as the legislation comes before us, we can apply through the grid of the Constitution the actual legislation that we’re looking at,” she said.
amazed that a) Bachmann knows what the commerce clause is and b) implication is also that she's familiar with how this was used in the late 19th and early 20th century to basically enable capitalist robber barons to loot the country, employ child labor, break strikes, flout minimum wage legislation, etc.
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 20 November 2010 00:11 (fifteen years ago)
like yes her rallying cry is actually to return to a judicial interpretation that's been discredited for over 100 years
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 20 November 2010 00:12 (fifteen years ago)
haha it's the bible study model! amazing.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 20 November 2010 00:22 (fifteen years ago)
"enable capitalist robber barons to loot the country, employ child labor, break strikes, flout minimum wage legislation, etc."
You make it sound like you think this is a bad thing. Don't you love America?
― Euler, Saturday, 20 November 2010 12:20 (fifteen years ago)
KABUL — Afghans in two crucial southern provinces are almost completely unaware of the September 11 attacks on the United States and don't know they precipitated the foreign intervention now in its 10th year, a new report showed on Friday...Few Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Taliban strongholds where fighting remains fiercest, know why foreign troops are in Afghanistan, says the "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables" report to be released later on Friday.The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001."The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high levels of negativity toward the NATO military operations and made the job of the Taliban easier," ICOS President Norine MacDonald told Reuters from Washington.Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/19/what-afghans-are-thinking/#ixzz15rYaZxKX
Few Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Taliban strongholds where fighting remains fiercest, know why foreign troops are in Afghanistan, says the "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables" report to be released later on Friday.
The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001.
"The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high levels of negativity toward the NATO military operations and made the job of the Taliban easier," ICOS President Norine MacDonald told Reuters from Washington.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/19/what-afghans-are-thinking/#ixzz15rYaZxKX
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 20 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
i will take bets on whether the average afghan citizen will be totally okay with the last ten years of war once we show them some 9/11 newspaper front pages
― dick roach (schlump), Sunday, 21 November 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)
“If you want to make changes in the world, you’re going to have to be there day after day doing the boring, straightforward work of getting a couple of people interested in an issue, building a slightly bigger organization, carrying out the next move, experiencing frustration, and finally getting somewhere. That’s how the world changes. That’s how you get rid of slavery, that’s how you get women’s rights, that’s how you get the vote, that’s how you get protection for working people. Every gain you can point to came from that kind of effort- not from people going to one demonstration and dropping out when nothing happens or voting once every four years and then going home. It’s fine to get a better or maybe less worse candidate in, but that’s the beginning, not the end. If you end there, you might as well not vote. Unless you develop an ongoing, living, democratic culture that can compel the candidates, they’re not going to do the things you voted for. Pushing a button and then going home is not going to change anything.”— Noam Chomsky
― smangs of new york (deej), Sunday, 21 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
I ended up drinking tonight with a table full of mostly-liberals, who were varying degrees of irritated or offended when I said that on economic policy the Obama administration is basically corrupt. Even though I allowed that it was better than a Republican administration. There were several people who still wanted to cut him slack, or blame "the system," etc. Mostly they wanted to get back to making fun of Sarah Palin.
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Monday, 22 November 2010 02:59 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:01 (fifteen years ago)
Earlier I hinted on the Palin thread that the only thing worse than conservatives praising Palin is liberals joking about her.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:07 (fifteen years ago)
I ended up drinking tonight with a table full of mostly-liberals, who were varying degrees of irritated or offended when I said that on economic policy the Obama administration is basically corrupt.
idk. i'm too tired to gear up for a deep discussion on it. but i'm not sure "corrupt" is accurate. "insufficiently bold" and "too worried about the risks of truly radical change to tear up the current framework and install a new one" might all be closer to the truth. why do you say "corrupt"?
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:07 (fifteen years ago)
bah. maybe i need to be drinking, is what i'm thinkin'.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:08 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:07 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark
well really, the only thing worse than conservatives praising her is liberals taking her seriously as A THREAT -- if you're gonna approach her idk how else you would do it besides joking
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:17 (fifteen years ago)
i don't see her as a THREAT or (mostly) a JOKE. i see her as a calculated, shallow caricature that reflects poorly on our collective political body.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:19 (fifteen years ago)
Oh c'mon -- you've worried plenty.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:20 (fifteen years ago)
in the past, yeah. i don't think she's a threat in 2012.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:20 (fifteen years ago)
right, and you approach people like that with intense cynicism & by mocking them relentlessly, if you decide to approach them at all
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:20 (fifteen years ago)
I drove past a dead possum today.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
the only thing i've worried about re sarah palin is whether or not my twitter feed is gonna be overrun by people live tweeting her show
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
well, to be clear. i think she had potential to be dangerous. but she seems to have over-invested in her current public personality, which her core supporters love but also makes her toxic in a general-election.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
Did you see Frank Rich in the NYT on Palin and how Palin's Alaska show drew a larger audience than the season-ending episode of Mad Men. Her popularity among many scares me.
Obama's reliance on former investment banker and freddie mac insider Rahm Emanuel and the subsequent hiring of Geithner and Summers made economic policy insufficiently bold, but was that corrupt? Or maybe relying on Wall Street Dems is corrupt.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:22 (fifteen years ago)
this is self parody right?
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
i drove past one yesterday. must be a south-florida thing.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
if the economy doesn't grow any damn thing could happen
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
ha but dude that's been the rundown on her since forever now. i don't think much has changed
i think she has as good as shot as like, huckabee or something, but i'm not worried about her becoming president
xxxp
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
she's not a threat in that she'll never hold elected office again, but she's currently the most influential voice for the republican party. it's not something to make jokes about because it's more sad/scary than absurd at this point.
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
Obama's reliance on former investment banker and freddie mac insider Rahm Emanuel and the subsequent hiring of Geithner and Summers made economic policy insufficiently bold, but was that corrupt?
yeah this is corrupt
Obama's reliance on former investment banker and freddie mac insider Rahm Emanuel and the subsequent hiring of Geithner and Summers made economic policy insufficiently bold, but was that corrupt? Or maybe relying on Wall Street Dems is corrupt
wait, are you serious?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:25 (fifteen years ago)
curmudgeon's post was amazing if his intent was to make it so no one knew if he was completely kidding or pretty much clueless
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:25 (fifteen years ago)
but she's currently the most influential voice for the republican party. it's not something to make jokes about because it's more sad/scary than absurd at this point.
― iatee, Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
the first part isn't true, and as such the second part is invalid -- there are many, many more sad/scary aspects of the republican party
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:26 (fifteen years ago)
eh, i'm not sure i buy the part after your dash.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:27 (fifteen years ago)
What makes her influential? She's just everywhere. That's not influence.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:27 (fifteen years ago)
who's a more influential voice in the republican party? how many republicans could more than 50% of the country even name?
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:28 (fifteen years ago)
Ubiquity is not influence though.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:28 (fifteen years ago)
right^^^^^^^^^^^^
it's like john lithgow winning an acting award. you'd only give it to him if the award was for MOST acting, not BEST acting.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:28 (fifteen years ago)
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:27 PM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark
the amount of money being raised by karl rove & his general resurgence in american politics is about 5 million times more sad/scary than sarah palin's facebook postings
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:29 (fifteen years ago)
Her, let's call them, ideas are discussed with more enthusiasm on ILX than they are on The Corner.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:29 (fifteen years ago)
her ideas are discussed w/ more enthusaism on tv news than those of any other republican atm. I consider that influence.
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:34 (fifteen years ago)
I can't think of a single Palinism in Boehner and McConnell's programs. However, if her example forces GOP governors to consider resigning from office before the completion of their terms, I'm all for it.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:37 (fifteen years ago)
i'd guess that, in serious GOP policy/political circles, she's considered more of a useful idiot. she uses that to her advantage (as rich notes), but playing that card has limits.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:38 (fifteen years ago)
btw, possum on my front porch right now. it scares me more than the prospect of a palin presidency in 2012.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:39 (fifteen years ago)
serious GOP policy/political circles
where are these hiding?
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:39 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, what's the one thing that people point to re palin's "influence"? "death panels" which, in real terms, amounted to.... a bunch of consternation? at best? distractions in the political discourse for a few weeks? coded terms passed on through by frank luntz are still way worse
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:39 (fifteen years ago)
AP: bad news democrats: 2012 could be worse than 2010
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:43 (fifteen years ago)
"The 2012 Senate landscape shows a daunting picture for the Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the GOP's Senate campaign committee.
great journalism
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)
― _| ̄|_| ̄|_| ̄|_ = (4/π)Σsin((2k-1)2πft)/(2k-1); k = 1, 2,..., ∞ (crüt), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)
'Harry Reid of Nevada is the Senate majority leader.'
I am trying to figure out how this line was supposed to work w/ the article
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)
oh it was to explain 'obama-reid'
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:47 (fifteen years ago)
More hackery:
Perhaps no Senate contest will inspire Democrats more than Massachusetts, where they are burning to take back the seat long held by liberal hero Edward M. Kennedy. The state leans heavily Democratic. But Brown stunned the political establishment in the January special election, and it's possible he has more magic up his Republican sleeve
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:47 (fifteen years ago)
i think it's entirely possible that palin could win the GOP nomination, and i think it's entirely possible that if economic growth doesn't pick up in the next two years we'll see a repeat of earlier this month: furious right wingers, a constant mantra of anxiety and failure, and depressed democrats and liberals. you don't even need some stupid fantasy scenario of a bloomberg spoiler.
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:47 (fifteen years ago)
AP's political shop is such shit
...on that note, here's a funny idea a few people are floating: could the GOP deliberately keep the economy stalled for two years?
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/forecasting-2012
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/planning-for-the-worst/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/1923/bitter-gop-criticism-fed-may-be-ahead
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:56 (fifteen years ago)
you really think democrats and liberals wouldn't turnout vs. palin?
(I think there's a very decent chance she'll get the nom btw)
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 03:57 (fifteen years ago)
goole, i don't think that's an impossible scenario.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 03:58 (fifteen years ago)
thin line between GOP deliberately keeping the economy stalled and basically following its normal economic policy beliefs
― iatee, Monday, 22 November 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
it's an incredibly likely scenario -- the fuck do republicans care about the part of the economy that doesn't pertain to big business?
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
"The 2012 Senate landscape shows a daunting picture for the Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the GOP's Senate campaign committee. "They're not only defending twice as many seats as Republicans, but a number of them are in states where the Obama-Reid agenda is deeply unpopular."
Harry Reid is the drummer for Gay Dad.
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 22 November 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
oh he is not
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 04:03 (fifteen years ago)
i actually thought preventing economic recovery while govt is controlled by Ds had been fairly well-known as the GOP strategy by this point
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Monday, 22 November 2010 04:06 (fifteen years ago)
i haven't read of those posts closely, except for the krugman one
i dunno if i'd call it deliberate economic sabotage by the GOP for it's own gain. i think it's more likely that the conservative business, political and media elites really are of the same mind, and really are convinced that they are living through some kind of dangerous revolutionary junta. it's not really "the blind leading the blind" so much as, the cynics have led the paranoiacs for so long, there aren't really even cynics left. it's nutcases all around.
i'm not an economist, but how can high corporate profits and high unemployment go together? why wouldn't the economy and jobs grow if companies are making money? i don't think it's "uncertainty" that management is afraid of, it's obama. they really shouldn't be, but they don't really live in our world.
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 04:15 (fifteen years ago)
well, the GOP spent the past two years opposing everything, less because their leaders objected to the policies and more because they were using every proposal as a means of whipping up the kind of frenzy with "tea-partiers" that served them well earlier this month. i think they'll make a similar calculation for the next two years.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 04:19 (fifteen years ago)
plenty of them objected to the policies! that's just as crazy!
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 04:20 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 03:27 (47 minutes ago)
She seemed to help get several idiots GOP Senate nominations.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 22 November 2010 04:23 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, what's the one thing that people point to re palin's "influence"? "death panels" which, in real terms, amounted to....
I'd say helping move national political discourse ever rightwards. By using populist catch phrases (true or not), she facilitated the framing of the policies of the Dems and Obama in particular as Ultra Leftist Extremists, successfully scaring them into ever rightward positions. And if you don't buy that last bit, then she just made it easier for them to 'sell out' to the Complaining Left.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 22 November 2010 05:26 (fifteen years ago)
except health care still passed
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 05:30 (fifteen years ago)
'health care'
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 22 November 2010 05:35 (fifteen years ago)
well yes, but the ideal "health care" hinged on many things, none of which was sarah palin's facebook posts about death panels
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 05:36 (fifteen years ago)
"health care"
― max, Monday, 22 November 2010 05:37 (fifteen years ago)
i mean it's not even an arguable point -- regardless of what you think about the health care bill itself, sarah palin argued that the bill shouldn't be passed, one of the reasons why was because of "death panels", which caught some traction and ultimately.... didn't matter in the slightest cuz that bill still passed
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 05:37 (fifteen years ago)
a passed bill makes mischaracterization of the bill moot? scott brown? three weeks ago?
― bounding (tremendoid), Monday, 22 November 2010 06:43 (fifteen years ago)
it mattered a lot when the bill's passage was in doubt, which it very much was up until the final vote.
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 06:44 (fifteen years ago)
i'm not even wading into the palin influence dealie but that's an odd tack, even if you don't buy the 'framing' argument in the abstract
― bounding (tremendoid), Monday, 22 November 2010 06:45 (fifteen years ago)
i wonder if it makes a difference if she runs or even wins, the party is essentially palinist
i'm pretty sure that she will not run. why? cos i'm pretty sure that somewhere in her ratlike sociopath's brain she knows that her best value to herself and to her narrow-but-rabid fanbase is being able to serve them a constant stream of inspiring irritation to all the 'corrupt bastards' out there. i know she's pretty dumb, but she has to know that subjecting all that to a real electoral contest would make it all too fatally real, and it would be all over. liberals would like to see her run to watch her be defeated, discredited and finally ignored definitively, and that's why she'll never do it. she is going to be around forever.
her quitting episode tells me that she really is able to convince herself that bailing out of anything hard in favor of the gravy train is the most principled thing anyone could ever do. losing or even just undertaking a race would be a threat to her free license to talk shit for money.
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 06:56 (fifteen years ago)
i tend to agree with you, i just wonder if the behind the scenes people attaching themselves to the palin gravy train will push her into running
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 06:58 (fifteen years ago)
Did any of you guys actually watch Palin's reality show? Obviously it's pretty glossy, but it really gave me some insight into her particular brand of lunacy.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Monday, 22 November 2010 07:03 (fifteen years ago)
i saw the first episode & thought it was pretty boilerplate
i mean, reading anything into things that happen on a 'reality tv show' is probably incredibly faulty, even with someone like palin
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 07:05 (fifteen years ago)
i think she probably wont run but shell play the "considering it" game up until the very end
― max, Monday, 22 November 2010 07:06 (fifteen years ago)
^^^ yeah
― _| ̄|_| ̄|_| ̄|_ = (4/π)Σsin((2k-1)2πft)/(2k-1); k = 1, 2,..., ∞ (crüt), Monday, 22 November 2010 07:08 (fifteen years ago)
All of whom lost!
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 11:58 (fifteen years ago)
Right-wingers who dislike (what they take to be) Obama's economic agenda aren't necessarily nutcases; they're just interested in maximizing their own wealth & don't care about anyone else. I guess selfishness could be construed as nutcase but it's not like caring about other people is especially "natural" either.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 13:11 (fifteen years ago)
they have convinced themselves that their philosophy helps small businesses and creates jobs no matter what the facts show
― curmudgeon, Monday, 22 November 2010 13:17 (fifteen years ago)
The small-business-owners amongst the right have convinced themselves that their economics maximizes their wealth, but I don't think the corporate overlords of the right care one way or the other about that.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 13:22 (fifteen years ago)
in his new (and, as of page 50 at least, oddly underwelming, unsatisfying, shallow) book, matt taibbi says there's really no difference between democrats and republicans. instead, there's an orchetrated series of fake disputes to lull the public to sleep. they do this because, according to taibbi, these elites have decided that the united states is sinking into third-world-nation status, there's nothing that can be done to reverse that trend, and so their main, perhaps only real, concern is to vaccum up whatever cash remains, and preoccupy the masses with kabuki theater.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 14:26 (fifteen years ago)
That's a point that Peggy Noonan, who I value or trust for nothing other than her sense of what the elites are thinking, made in a column mid-decade.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 14:29 (fifteen years ago)
oh plz stuff it awready
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 22 November 2010 14:55 (fifteen years ago)
these elites have decided that the united states is sinking into third-world-nation status, there's nothing that can be done to reverse that trend
a recently-super-radicalized friend is also convinced of this - sort of neo-apocalypticism in the air
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:06 (fifteen years ago)
"Third-world status" is pretty over-the-top, though, & especially rich coming from elites. But I dunno: I see my students & what they come into university being able to do, & I think that I don't want to live in this nation in twenty years. We are a very small-minded people.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 15:11 (fifteen years ago)
tbh I've felt this way since I was a child but that was partially a by-product of a massive, out-of-control ego
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:18 (fifteen years ago)
Gore Vidal to thread.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:19 (fifteen years ago)
i was struck, really almost depondent, when i read that, since i take what taibbi says seriously. probably because i have a 9-year old daughter, and i worry about the world that she'll step into as an adult. but i'm now getting the sense, from the beginning of the book, that you have to take what taibbi writes with at least a grain of salt.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 15:32 (fifteen years ago)
mostly bcz he seemed to half-believe in Obama 2 years ago.
The we're-doomed part? Duh.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:35 (fifteen years ago)
Worrying about the world into which you're sending your kids unites Tea Party members and libs alike.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:40 (fifteen years ago)
Any parent should worry about that, but maybe "worry" is too strong; more like, teach your kids to adapt to the world you're giving them. Where I'd differ with tea party people is that the adaptation I'd advise is a passport, fluency in a second language & the hunger for further linguistic development, & a sense that, as a wise man once said, America is not the world.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 15:45 (fifteen years ago)
sometimes I think the biggest thing the rich/elite get right is that they teach their kids to adapt their worlds to their own liking
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:47 (fifteen years ago)
really I think white lion said it best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZ79InLGRY
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 22 November 2010 15:49 (fifteen years ago)
i sob every time i hear that song.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 15:51 (fifteen years ago)
xp to DJP: If you have enough money then you can do that, but something else the elite get right is that their kids know that the world is big. My father is an immigrant & we moved around the USA a lot when I was a kid, so I think always knew this, implicitly at least. But my kids know this explicitly now.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 15:52 (fifteen years ago)
It's easy to be worried about the mystery super elite puppeteering Dems and Repubs into selling us out and leaving our children some 3rd world existence because its not gonna happen and frankly its a much nicer thought than what we should actually be concerned about. Which is our kids in another 20 years fighting all the new terrorists we are currently creating with this War On Terror. No doubt all the old (and now thoroughly tested!) lines will be brought out to explain why they are fighting us. The real reason is we killed & tortured some kid's entire civilian family in Iraq in 2006 and for some reason he's held a grudge about that!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 22 November 2010 16:10 (fifteen years ago)
Every time I hear that song I think of the desk in my 7th grade english classroom with WHITE LOIN carved into it.
― joygoat, Monday, 22 November 2010 16:10 (fifteen years ago)
It's easy to be worried about the mystery super elite puppeteering Dems and Repubs into selling us out and leaving our children some 3rd world existence because its not gonna happen
yeah, despite my initial reaction to what tabbai wrote, i think adam's right. and this leads to a more involved discussion about why he's right, or at least why he could be right (and, to me, that's all about economics, the intersection of the economy and the security state (based on our elevated concerns about terrorism), and immigration). but i'll have to circle back to this topic later.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 22 November 2010 16:13 (fifteen years ago)
Mainly i think all that's the new distraction to take our minds off the wars. Which I think will have devastating consequences for the next generation.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 22 November 2010 16:19 (fifteen years ago)
lol @ alex pareene's HACK 30
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/22/war_room_hack_list_intro/index.html
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)
I think the opposite of Adam: the wars are a distraction from the economic restructuring that's been ongoing since Reagan & that accelerated under GWB.
― Euler, Monday, 22 November 2010 17:51 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 17:53 (fifteen years ago)
josh marshall just linked this. super cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4h62jRiUcc
― goole, Monday, 22 November 2010 19:21 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 22 November 2010 14:55 (6 hours ago)
Would you feel comfortable saying this to someone with a pre-existing condition?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 22 November 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, November 22, 2010 11:58 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark
Which is evidence of how much she affected politics right?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 22 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
again, my point had nothing to do w/ the merits of the health care bill
― J0rdan S., Monday, 22 November 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
Warren Buffet sez 'raise my taxes'
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 22 November 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
comments to that story = not recommended
― you can sub out "bipartisan solutions" for "some of my dick" (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 22 November 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
Matt, you're posting as if you want Palin to be an influence.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 22 November 2010 22:21 (fifteen years ago)
Courtesy Sullivan, David Frum's appraisal:
But in Palin’s case, the myth [of a party establishment] rings true. There really is a GOP party establishment. That establishment took up Palin as a useful tool in 2008, deployed Palin as an edged anti-Obama weapon in 2009 – and is now horrified to see that they may have set in motion a force possibly too powerful to halt when its time has ended. The story of the behind-the-scenes struggle to squelch Palin – and her ferocious determination not to be squelched – will be the big GOP-side story of the coming year.
― clemenza, Monday, 22 November 2010 22:25 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, November 22, 2010 10:21 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark
I'm just being realistic about her place in politics atm. Pretending she's irrelevant won't make it true.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 22 November 2010 22:50 (fifteen years ago)
Anyone seen Salon's countdown of The Hack 30 -- the worst political reporters in America?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:36 (fifteen years ago)
nope
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)
i was gonna do a poll at the end
― max, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)
i miss GHOST RIDER ;_;
feel like you could still do that (i'll be voting for tucker)
yeah
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
good article in gq on eric holder & discussion of the obama admin's biggest/actual failings imo
― smangs of new york (deej), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
miss u crossfire
― markers, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 02:27 (fifteen years ago)
― max, Monday, November 22, 2010 6:37 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
isn't dude like yr boss or something
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 03:01 (fifteen years ago)
for those still searching for a lovely holiday gift for that special someone.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 23 November 2010 04:09 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/logrolling.jpg
― buzza, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 04:15 (fifteen years ago)
Geg Sargent in the Washington Post quoted by Washington Monthly blog re the discussion that Republicans are engaged in "economic sabotage" and want the economy to do poorly for the next 2 years because they think it will reflect badly on Obama and not them:
...I happen to think the "economic sabotage" argument is not going to work. Dems tried variations of this case for two years, and there's no evidence they bore any fruit. I just don't think voters will buy it, or if they do, they won't particularly care about it.
Also: At a certain point there's little percentage in making variations of the same old lament again and again that Republicans are out to defeat Obama politically at all costs and that it's folly for Obama to keep seeking bipartisan compromise. It seems like the better argument to be having at this point is over what Obama specifically should do to adjust to this new reality.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
It seems like the better argument to be having at this point is over what Obama specifically should do to adjust to this new reality.
duh. take it for granted that this is the Republican strategy and act accordingly.
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
"Act accordingly." For 2 years the White House has mostly kept quiet and not acted. In addition to the economy, I just read that even some Republican appointed judges are calling for Congress to act and get judges appointed. The Republicans are preventing any votes from being taken. So to "act accordingly" would mean what--Presidential speech calling for up and down votes, with a Republican response claiming that Dems blocked some appointees in the past.
in other news:
How about that fake Taliban guy paid by the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/asia/23kabul.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
The Times quotes a Western diplomat: "And we gave him a lot of money."
The sad take at the end of the piece though is:
Sayed Amir Muhammad Agha, a onetime Taliban commander who says he has left the Taliban but who acted as a go-between with the movement in the past, said in an interview that he did not know the tale of the impostor.
But he said the Taliban leadership had given no indications of a willingness to enter talks.
“Someone like me could come forward and say, ‘I am a Talib and a powerful person,’ ” he said. “But I can tell you, nothing is going on.”
“Whenever I talk to the Taliban, they never accept peace and they want to keep on fighting,” he said. “They are not tired.”
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:18 (fifteen years ago)
fake taliban thing is amazing. also sad. also embarassing.
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:34 (fifteen years ago)
kinda makes you wonder if it's even possible to do what we say we want to in Af! or even worth trying!
― goole, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:36 (fifteen years ago)
I don't see a thread here discussing the new TSA outrages, which in itself is interesting as the rest of the internet as well as the traditional news outlets seem to going apeshit about them. To me this whole issue is such a distraction from more important things, and it really highlights the sense of entitlement that many americans seem to have. Out of all the atrocities committed in the name of U.S. security this is the one that seems to be drawing the most popular protest. It's ok for innocent people to die as collateral damage in our wars. "Suspected terrorists", many of whom are also innocent and merely swept up and turned in as the result of local feuds, can be detained and tortured for years with no legal recourse, and yet as soon as a security measure inconveniences us in any way it's such an outrage.
― dsb, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:22 (fifteen years ago)
Erosion of civil liberties shifts into high gear
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:24 (fifteen years ago)
Interesting.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:25 (fifteen years ago)
Out of all the atrocities committed in the name of U.S. security this is the one that seems to be drawing the most popular protest.
Politico had some poll sowing that 2/3rds of America support the TSA and don't have a problem with its policies. this is a cable-news/internet frenzy 100% made-up "issue"
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
libertarians are irritating, well funded, and right about 45% of the time, film at 11
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:36 (fifteen years ago)
this is a cable-news/internet frenzy 100% made-up "issue" Right, I agree obviously, however when cable news and half of the internet are screaming about "TSA child molesters" or something, it has consequences and is worth noting, as shown by by our recent experiences with "Death Panels" and other such manufactured soundbytes.
― dsb, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:38 (fifteen years ago)
GG might want to have another word with this writer
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/daskrapital/2010/11/17/libertarians-behind-tsa-junk-touching-outrage-orgy-also-masterminded-topless-tuesdays/
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
McLain is "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
I just.... waht
TSA junk touching
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:55 (fifteen years ago)
If you are the type of person who has Nickelback on your iPod, you would likely call this woman "smokin' hot".
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:55 (fifteen years ago)
Politico had some poll sowing that 2/3rds of America support the TSA and don't have a problem with its policies
IIRC someone discovered that something like 80% of those respondents fly once or less per year, so who honestly gives a shit what they think of the policies?
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:56 (fifteen years ago)
I fly once or less per year
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:57 (fifteen years ago)
if the majority of people fly once or less per year, then a majority of the people don't have a problem with the TSA. this is immaterial.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:56 AM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark
iirc most ppl only fly a couple times a year
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:57 (fifteen years ago)
wait that was messed up
what I meant was whether or not people fly once a year is immaterial, they are still a majority.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:59 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, see, I don't think a set of policies should stand or fall based on whether a bunch of people who will never be affected by it approve or disapprove.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 16:59 (fifteen years ago)
I can show you a bunch of majorities who approve of a bunch of stupid shit. Who cares?
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
personally I think flying SHOULD be difficult. it's a hugely wasteful endeavor on a lot of levels, and has a bunch of dangerous/negative impacts.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
never
see now who's being disingenuous
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, see, I don't think a set of policies should stand or fall based on whether a bunch of people who will never be affected by it approve or disapprove.― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:59 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:59 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
how many gays want to serve in the military anyway
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:02 (fifteen years ago)
hmmmm, back of the bus, or the front....so many choices!
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:03 (fifteen years ago)
Uh . . . I think you're accidentally making my point for me.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:08 (fifteen years ago)
This doesn't even make any sense. The plane is going to fly whether a TSA dude cops a feel on you in the security line or not. You want to make an argument against air travel generally, make that argument!
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
ha no i agree with you, actually
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:12 (fifteen years ago)
Phil D. fights in zero wars per year -- remind me of this if he ever posts about iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:14 (fifteen years ago)
Also you live in one state, so don't opine about the other 49
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:15 (fifteen years ago)
here's more on that weird publisher:
http://isbndb.com/d/publisher/arlington_house_publishers.html
i would read the hell out of any one of these books
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:19 (fifteen years ago)
So, J0rdan, in 1919, denying American women the right to vote was good policy because probably well more than 80% of American men agreed with the policy or weren't bothered with it. Right?
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:19 (fifteen years ago)
I would count posting on ILX about politics as fighting in a war
(not in front of actual soldiers, mind you)
― ali-baba-boob-job-bomb.jpg (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
The point isn't that people who aren't affected aren't allowed to opine -- it's that their collective opinions do not determine whether policies are good or bad. This is, like, rudimentary we-don't-govern-by-plebiscite stuff.
I bet we could get 90%+ of Americans to agree that a policy of simply pulling all Muslim-looking or Arab-sounding people aside and strip-searching them would be perfectly OK, too. That wouldn't make it a good idea, regardless of how Joe Wasp feels about it.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
Very good Phil, classic example. Isn't there a Christine o Donnell tweet you should be attending to?
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
Majoritarian rule vs the rights of the majority is like basic con law.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
*rights of the minority
okay now I'm offended
― Joe Wasp (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
Rock-solid argument there, J0rdan.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)
"People that fly less than once a year on average" is not a quantifiable or significant minority of people like "women" or "blacks"
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
That's what I like to see, a real forest-for-the-trees kind of guy!
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
"US Flyers Grudgingly Accept New Airport Safety Policies" vs "OMG Woman Has Breasts Groped in Public, Is Humiliated, Titillating Film At 11!"
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:34 (fifteen years ago)
poor OMG Woman, she's had a rough year
― Joe Wasp (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
Phil do you think that only heroin and coke and crack and meth users should be the ones crafting hard drug policy
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
"Suspected terrorists", many of whom are also innocent and merely swept up and turned in as the result of local feuds, can be detained and tortured for years with no legal recourse, and yet as soon as a security measure inconveniences us in any way it's such an outrage.
Are we still pretending like "people are self-centered and thoughtless" is a major insight on this thread?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:38 (fifteen years ago)
No, and again, you're missing the point. Do you need me to repost it in capital letters or something? The point isn't that people who aren't affected aren't allowed to opine -- it's that their collective opinions do not determine whether policies are good or bad.
(Also, I wonder how the Politico poll respondents would have answered had they actually already gone through the new procedures.)
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
I still say the main reason this is all over the news is so they can say the words "grope" and "genitals".
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
I mean the actual content of all these stories is just padding. Even if 99% of American citizens wanted this to end, it wouldnt. It's really kind of irrelevant.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:44 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/24/national.opt.out.day/index.html?hpt=C1
― Joe Wasp (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:46 (fifteen years ago)
Americans in overwhelming deference to authority shocker.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
The point isn't that people who aren't affected aren't allowed to opine
these people ARE affected. once a year.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
but yeah Alfred OTM majority rule vs. rights of minority is basic con law this is kinda a boring tack to take.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:51 (fifteen years ago)
the tsa story is a good example of the way the population of people on the internet is going to increasingly start determining whats news
also its a slow news week otherwise--korea? pfff, no child-molesting angle
― max, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:52 (fifteen years ago)
oh tpm muckraker, i love you so
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/minn_pol_with_gun_outside_abortion_clinic_says_he.php
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:54 (fifteen years ago)
what the
― Joe Wasp (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:57 (fifteen years ago)
When police came, they handcuffed him and took his gun, which he has a concealed carry permit for. Hackbarth claimed he didn't realize he was in the Planned Parenthood parking lot, according to the police report. He said he was in the neighborhood looking for his girlfriend, a woman he said he had met online a few months before and had been on a couple dates with.
Police have not been able to track down the mystery woman. Hackbarth said he didn't have her phone number or address, as he only communicated with her via an online dating site. He also told police he didn't remember the name of the site.
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 17:59 (fifteen years ago)
LOL @ his cover story, which suggests that instead of wreaking havoc at an abortion clinic, he was merely stalking his possibly cheating girlfriend with a loaded gun.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:02 (fifteen years ago)
"She gave me some line of baloney, and I thought, 'well, she's fibbing to me.' You could tell, and I thought, 'well, I'm going to check it out.' and I went there to see if she was around and her vehicle was not there. And I was just checking on her," he told the local CBS affiliate.According to the Tribune, he thought she was with another man and wanted to look around the neighborhood for her car. He didn't find it."I was not a jealous boyfriend," he said. "I was just trying to check up on her. It's totally a misunderstanding."
According to the Tribune, he thought she was with another man and wanted to look around the neighborhood for her car. He didn't find it.
"I was not a jealous boyfriend," he said. "I was just trying to check up on her. It's totally a misunderstanding."
Wow, that's fucking creepy. I mean, like, stalking-and-killing-a-near-stranger level creepy.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:02 (fifteen years ago)
guys i don't think there's a girl
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:05 (fifteen years ago)
No, but even so, that that's the cover story that comes to mind is just . . . "No, no, I'm not here because of the clinic. I was just, um, stalking . . . a woman . . . who didn't want to go out with me!"
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:06 (fifteen years ago)
That Greenwald post is amazing. What a jaw-droopingly stupid smear article.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:15 (fifteen years ago)
what the fuck is going on in Minnesota
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
Police found maps, binoculars and more ammunition in his truck. They did not press charges, and returned Hackbarth's gun to him a week later.
Jesus
Hackbarth, a 58-year-old married father of three, said he is going through a divorce with his wife. They've been legally separated for more than a year, he said.
well in fairness I know plenty of people who mid-divorce were kinda not their normal selves
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
at the same time, they didn't carry guns & ammo around during that time. in abortion clinic parking lots. in minnesota
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:20 (fifteen years ago)
mn house district 48A sits inside mn-06. bachmann country!
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
okay that makes a lot more sense
― Joe Wasp (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:24 (fifteen years ago)
Hackbarth has no criminal record. Police found his name in a criminal database as an alias for Paul Joseph Hackbarth. Tom Hackbarth told police that was his brother, who was killed about six years ago in Illinois during a bank robbery.
Hackbarth, who easily won re-election over Democrat Laurie Olmon, said he doesn't believe the incident should reflect poorly on his leadership.
"Absolutely not," he said. "I understand why the police and the security guard thought what they might have thought, but it really was insignificant to me."
http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_16696907?nclick_check=1
huh.
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)
"She gave me some line of baloney, and I thought, 'well, she's fibbing to me.' You could tell..."
This quote is just mindboggling.
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
Here's his mn.gov page: will you just look at what he's responsible for?
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:29 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?id=10229
"She gave me some line of baloney
Can you snort it?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)
i know we have a lot of mn ilxors, but don't we end up talking about weird local political shit from up here more often than other places? i didn't even get that from local media, which i barely read anyway. maybe my perceptions are off but it seems odd. so many places are way more fucked up as a general thing
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:35 (fifteen years ago)
His excuses remind me of Homer Simpson:
Agent: Now, before I give you the check, one more question. This place ``Moe's'' you left just before the accident. This is a business ofsome kind?
Homer: [thinks] Don't tell him you were at a bar! Gasp! But what else is open at night?[aloud] It's a pornography store. I was buying pornography.[thinks] Heh heh heh. I would'a never thought of that.
Marge: Oh, Homer, don't start stalking people again. It's so _illegal_. Remember when you were stalking Charles Kuralt because youthought he dug up your garden?
Homer: Well, something did!
Marge: I don't want you stalking anyone tonight.Homer: Oh, OK, have it your own way, Marge. I'll be back in a minute [gets up]: I'm...[sly] going outside. To..._stalk_...Lenny andCarl. [realizes] D'oh!
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
no way goole
MN is the most fucked up and you know it, all that snow gets in people's brains
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
ugh dude i'm trying to beat a blizzard out of work as we speak
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)
oh fuck theres a blizzard coming??? :(
good thing there's a planned parenthood down the block for when my gf's car goes in the ditch and I cant find her
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)
well i dunno if it's a full-on blizzard, but, snow.
godspeed!
― goole, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:46 (fifteen years ago)
Minnesotans are quite politically engaged with state stuff, even when they move away. Our politicians on whatever side are all fairly outspoken/colourful/Al Franken and the Republicans are all Special Children, so it's basically chum for sharks. Also, if Bachmann were from another state we'd be like 'WTF is it with Oregon'?
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:52 (fifteen years ago)
yeah but if she were from south Carolina no one would notice
think cuz MNans have a rep for being level headed that our crazies seem crazier.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 18:56 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/obama-can-pursue-busy-age_n_778583.html
Agenda Obama can pursue using exec. branch agencies and such so as to work around Republican obstructions. 1st example-taking on banks re foreclosure issues and such via regulation and other Exec. powers
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 20:46 (fifteen years ago)
It would be great if he did these things but I doubt he will. One of the items:
And of course Obama could clean house.
"The single best thing he could do is fire [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner," Kuttner said. "Get some people in there who speak for Main Street
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
Politico had some poll sowing that 2/3rds of America support the TSA and don't have a problem with its policies. this is a cable-news/internet frenzy 100% made-up "issue"― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:31 AM (4 hours ago)
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:31 AM (4 hours ago)
in addition to not mattering, this is also pretty arguable
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
About half say the pat-downs, which often touch breast, buttocks and genital areas, are not more effective than previous search methods at preventing terrorists from smuggling potential weapons or explosives onto airplanes.
they would know eh
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
honestly I just think this "outrage" is ridiculous - of all the fucked up shit our gov't is up to, this is the unconcsionable violation of their sovereignty that people get upset about? bitch please. I totally do not care.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:19 (fifteen years ago)
You know what is getting under reported? It's not the groping, per se, that constitutes the new security measure. Reportedly the "groping" is often to get samples on the gloves, which are then tested for explosive residue. And ball sweat, I guess.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:23 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know, guys -- Florida is pretty fucked up (and fucked).
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:37 (fifteen years ago)
Meanwhile, despite booming corporate profits and the mostly friendly approach of the Obama White House and economics team, the business community keeps whining and naturally Obama is prepared to give in:
The White House, which has strained relations with the business community, wants someone with business experience to succeed Mr. Summers. from the NY Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/us/politics/24staff.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a24
Not that someone with business experience couldn't be tougher on Wall Street and more concerned with creating jobs, but the above reads like code words for hiring someone from Wall Street.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 22:00 (fifteen years ago)
zomg, they are going to hire Shia TheBeef
― Joe Wasp (DJP), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
Geithner looks like an adult TheBeef already.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 22:07 (fifteen years ago)
DeLay = Guilty
plz plz plz send this guy to prison
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)
I hope they throw the book at the hammer.
― Grim Viceroy Tales: Hit the Trail… to Flavor! (Viceroy), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 23:52 (fifteen years ago)
keep hoping - he'll do no time.
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:07 (fifteen years ago)
This could go on the Onion thread, but I'll post it here. I agree with Sullivan: brilliant.
<iframe frameborder="no" width="480" height="270" scrolling="no" src="http://www.theonion.com/video_embed/?id=18509"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-outlines-moral-philosophical-justifications,18509/" target="_blank" title="Obama Outlines Moral, Philosophical Justifications For Turkey Pardon">Obama Outlines Moral, Philosophical Justifications For Turkey Pardon</a>
― clemenza, Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:26 (fifteen years ago)
Oops--here's the straight link:
http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-outlines-moral-philosophical-justifications,18509/
― clemenza, Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:28 (fifteen years ago)
Sarah Palin made her latest verbal gaffe on Wednesday, claiming North Korea is one of America's allies on Glenn Beck's radio show when asked how she'd handle the recent escalation between the two Koreas. "This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy," the former vice presidential candidate said on Wednesday. "But obviously we've gotta stand with our North Korean allies." The host corrected her. "South Korea," Beck said. "Eh, yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes," Palin responded.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/24/2010-11-24_sarah_palin_on_glenn_becks_radio_show_we_gotta_stand_with_our_north_korean_allie.html#ixzz16FcR4WQ0
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:50 (fifteen years ago)
Did she say anything about being able to see North Korea from her window?
― clemenza, Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:55 (fifteen years ago)
well according to that article both counts come with mandatory prison sentencing so we'll see
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:58 (fifteen years ago)
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcf0gsjKfE1qdmmiqo1_400.gif
see if you can figure out what he's whistling
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:09 (fifteen years ago)
chopin, piano sonata no. 2?
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:11 (fifteen years ago)
noooope
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:13 (fifteen years ago)
"I Got Rhythm"
― Bull fighting, Paris, hunting, suicide (kenan), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcf0dxTd1G1qdmmiqo1_400.gif
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
yeah but it could also be "runnn-ing as fast as they can, iron maaaan lives again"
― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:25 (fifteen years ago)
Article also says he's eligible for probation. Most Texas felonies leave that as an option even with otherwise hefty penalties iirc.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:25 (fifteen years ago)
Full list of Salon's Hack Thirty:
http://www.salon.com/news/war_room_hack_thirty/index.html
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 25 November 2010 20:52 (fifteen years ago)
my favorite Hack 30 diss (at Jonah Goldberg's expense):
Jonah Goldberg writes the political column equivalent of weekly fart jokes, but longs to be taken seriously as a public intellectual.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Friday, 26 November 2010 08:20 (fifteen years ago)
the entire series was YOGA FLAME
― human fleshy kids (stevie), Friday, 26 November 2010 08:21 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40356320/ns/business-us_business/
Congressional Budget Office says stimulus created jobs and kept unemployment rate from going up to 11 %.
This is old news, right. None of this got publicized, and the left wanted a bigger stimulus plan, and the Republicans deluged the country with ads and media blather that it did not work.
Time to go eat some Thanksgiving leftovers.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 November 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
To succeed requires some knowledge of the task at hand, which Hoover did not have; it also requires a vulnerable opposition, which Franklin Roosevelt had, and which Obama certainly had in the first months of his presidency, when Republicans were in disarray and Wall Street was disgraced. Two things are then required of a president: bold and unprecedented initiatives that address the underlying economic problems, and a populist—and sometimes polarizing—politics that marshals support for these initiatives and disarms the opposition. Obama failed on both counts: His economic program—no matter how large in comparison to past efforts—was too timid, as many liberal economists recognized; and Obama proved surprisingly inept at convincing the public that even these efforts were necessary.
John Judis in The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/78890/a-lost-generation?page=0,1
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 November 2010 17:16 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/79361/mobilizing-independent-voters-unions
This guy says unions are the only way to get white, working folks to vote for Democrats. But if it looks like that unions are not coming back, isn't this dreaming? Is there any other way?
Unions remain an excellent source of political education. But, outside the public sector, they struggle to maintain strength; they are a declining influence in workplaces and neighborhoods where they once were powerful. In West Virginia, the Southern Baptist Convention is now a much larger institution than the United Mine Workers. No wonder that once strongly Democratic state has voted for the Republican presidential nominee in the last three elections.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 November 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
To succeed requires some knowledge of the task at hand, which Hoover did not have
Wrong. Hooever DID know -- he did too little too late.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 26 November 2010 19:21 (fifteen years ago)
Obama proved surprisingly inept at convincing the public that even these efforts were necessary.
The biggest problem Obama faced in this regard, as compared to FDR, was that when FDR was elected late in 1932 the Great Depression was already close to 3 years old and the general public was getting desperate for relief. They required little, if any, convincing that bold moves were needed. The Congress even changed the date of the inauguration from March up to January, specifically so FDR could take office sooner and get right to work on moving boldly.
OTOH, when Obama was elected the crisis was only a couple months old, and when he was inaugurated the unemployment rate had only just taken a huge leap up. People were afraid, but they hadn't lived with that fear for long, so the memory of that sickening nationwide panic has faded. I agree that, when panic prevailed was the ripest time to strike a new course, just as Bush did after 9/11.
Therefore, I do blame him and the Congress for a certain timidity, but the irony is that while O gets excoriated on the right for spending under a trillion on stimulus, Bernanke gets zero shit from them for spending more than 2 trillion toward the same end. No one even speaks of it, let alone criticizes it.
As for Hoover, he was waaaay out ahead of his party when it came to wanting to spend money on government relief programs. His biggest problem was that he greatly underestimated the need to spend, and his majority in Congress scaled back whatever programs he suggested to be even less effective. Also, the Fed was not helping him at all when it came to easing monetary policy.
― Aimless, Friday, 26 November 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
The Congress even changed the date of the inauguration from March up to January, specifically so FDR could take office sooner and get right to work on moving boldly.
This is incorrect -- the amendment passed in time for FDR's 1936 inauguration.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 26 November 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)
OUCH: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/26/barack-obama-basketball-injury-stitches
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Friday, 26 November 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)
TS: Elbowed in Basketball v Choking on a Pretzel
― Gukbe, Friday, 26 November 2010 21:45 (fifteen years ago)
v. vomitting after sushi.
― nickn, Friday, 26 November 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
Why did I watch Meet the Press with David Gregory? Aaaaaah. Painful. He let Arizona senator Jon Kyl repeat formula lines without challenging him. "We can't have the largest tax increase ever(re the Bush tax cuts for the rich); "we can't punish small business owners"; "we can't have economic uncertainty regarding tax rates"; "we can't rush things through during the lameduck session. These bills (unemployment;DADT; energy; Start;) need more thought". Ugh... He had Peggy Noonan on also reciting nonsense (Well maybe her statement that the Republican led House will make Obama look moderate made sense). And Democratic Senator Durbin was not exactly inspiring.
This morning's Washington Post is not any better. David Broder has a moronic piece regarding how Obama has to be bipartisan and have a one on one meeting with Kyl re START, and have individual meetings w/ Republican House and Senate letters on reaching a compromise on Bush tax cuts.
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 28 November 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
Jon Kyl is the worst.
― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:04 (fifteen years ago)
Worst among equals.
― leTeReL (Leee), Sunday, 28 November 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)
Depends on who are the equals. Bernie Sanders and Jon Kyl are not the same.
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 28 November 2010 21:56 (fifteen years ago)
Sorry, I was comparing Kyl to the rest of the GOP caucus.
― leTeReL (Leee), Sunday, 28 November 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)
http://mashable.com/2010/11/28/george-w-bush-facebook/
― markers, Monday, 29 November 2010 22:28 (fifteen years ago)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644630815574018.html
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a two-year salary freeze for all federal civilian employees, signaling an apparent willingness to reach toward Republicans ahead of negotiations on deficit-cutting that are likely to dominate Washington next year.
So, Obama defenders, what kind of incrementalism is this? Besides incrementally enacting the GOPs batshit agenda?
― Ignore Me! (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
Nothing but a symbolic gesture.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:20 (fifteen years ago)
Not very symbolic for those federal employees though.
― Ignore Me! (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
I don't mean to minimize the gesture (no one here can accuse me of being a Bam apologist) but until three months ago Florida state employees like me suffered under a three-year wage freeze.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
just to be very clear i am not making this argument. but the argument FOR obama going for the pay freeze is that hes protecting the federal work force from a worse fate (such as a hiring freeze or a lengthier pay freeze) but taking this particular item off the table.
― max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:28 (fifteen years ago)
it's finally nice to hear an argument for why it could possibly make sense (not being a smartass there, honest)!
one thing that's not really coming through in the coverage about the "pay freeze" is that it's not really a pay freeze at all. It's just a freeze on the 2-3% "inflation raise" that feds are accustomed to getting every January 1st. But the step and grade increases are not being frozen. (each "grade" has 12 "steps", I think. At the grades where DC feds usually are at, going up a grade is usually about a $6-9,000 raise, depending on which grade you're moving between. step increases are usually a couple thousand dollars a pop). Step increases are pretty much counted on every year, and grade increases are too, depending on your career ladder. It's tough to fuck it up and not get an increase. So when they say "pay freeze", they're just talking about the 1-2% inflation raise that you normally get on top of the other step/grade increase raise you were probably counting on as well. (wage tables for the DC area are here if anyone's really bored: http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/dcb.asp)
Anyway, I'm not pissed about the "pay freeze", and to be honest I'm often the coldhearted asshole who wishes there was a way to trim down the federal workforce a little. Plenty of people, most people, work very very hard and take their duties seriously. but there's a good 10-20% who just don't. do. anything. they don't do anything! at all! it's insane! and yet they can't be fired! and every year they get a step or grade promotion! there's no real way to say that without sounding like a total asshole, so I'll stop there I guess.
Both dems and republicans surely realize that the pay freeze is really just cutting a tiny sliver off the top, so it's all just political posturing, big surprise. the only thing that I'm pissed about is that once again the Obama administration gives away something for free that could have been a bargaining chip in another negotiation. Why do they keep doing this? it's idiotic.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
the only thing that I'm pissed about is that once again the Obama administration gives away something for free that could have been a bargaining chip in another negotiation
Yes. This is exactly why I'm barely bothering to register my contempt. Apparently the Washington cocktail party set can't understand, as usual, why liberals are upset.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:24 (fifteen years ago)
yeah maddow was pretty on point about this today
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:29 (fifteen years ago)
one thing that's not really coming through in the coverage about the "pay freeze" is that it's not really a pay freeze at all. It's just a freeze on the 2-3% "inflation raise" that feds are accustomed to getting every January 1st. But the step and grade increases are not being frozen. (each "grade" has 12 "steps", I think. At the grades where DC feds usually are at, going up a grade is usually about a $6-9,000 raise, depending on which grade you're moving between.
OK I didn't know about this part... makes things much more reasonable. So basically it is a meaningless gesture.
― Ignore Me! (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:32 (fifteen years ago)
btw, in my whining about feds who do absolutely nothing, I'm not advocating for a reduction in the federal workforce, but rather an easier way to replace deadweight "workers" with the thousands of well-qualified people who are desperate to land a federal job but can't even land an interview due to competition and the outdated bonkers application system.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:34 (fifteen years ago)
Paul Begala: Yes but I do think his point about capitulating rather than negotiating is a valid one with this president. The pay freeze is probably a good idea but should have come out of negotiation. What do the Republicans give, when the president gives...Gloria Borger: Why not give something first though? People don't like government and this is an easy gimme for the president.Begala: What are the Republicans proposing? Then you get it on the Republicans turf. Why don't you say I'll freeze federal pay and cut this in return for this and that program but you guys need to come with taxes on the rich at least say people who make over a million bucks don't get a tax cut. My Lord ...Borger: Well maybe there's something else he can negotiate.
Gloria Borger: Why not give something first though? People don't like government and this is an easy gimme for the president.
Begala: What are the Republicans proposing? Then you get it on the Republicans turf. Why don't you say I'll freeze federal pay and cut this in return for this and that program but you guys need to come with taxes on the rich at least say people who make over a million bucks don't get a tax cut. My Lord ...
Borger: Well maybe there's something else he can negotiate.
holla Begala, Borger boner
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:36 (fifteen years ago)
xp I feel you. I would really like to get a nice civil service job when I'm done with grad school. My dad works for the USDA and he will go off on how little some of his coworkers do or how pointless their positions are. Basically he made it sound like he does the work of four people and then the rest of this "team" shares the credit with the most going to his immediate boss who is like never at work. Pretty sad.
― Ignore Me! (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:36 (fifteen years ago)
SURE WHY NOT KEEP NEGOTIATING
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:43 (fifteen years ago)
what Obama REALLY needs to do is give up something big to the GOP, something HUGE that progressives favor, and do it nice and early before they even GOP even realizes what's going on. That way they'll know that Obama is a really nice guy
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)
then dump Biden and send Paul Ryan's name to the Senate for confirmation as vice president.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 03:52 (fifteen years ago)
Why not give something first
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 04:46 (fifteen years ago)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4055994186_88cfcdf777.jpg
the closest thing that i can come to a defense of Obama's pay freeze is that it is a better alternative than being fired (e.g., the way that my state's oh-so-wonderful Governor Krispy Kreme is planning to do with NJ state workers).
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 10:43 (fifteen years ago)
No freezes for congressional salaries or congressional staffers salaries. Health insurance charges going up 7 % for federal workers.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 14:03 (fifteen years ago)
this is what I meant:
With health insurance premiums for civil servants set to jump 7.2 percent on average next year and a federal transit subsidy to be cut by half Dec. 31, the plan will amount to a pay cut for many workers. from Washington Post
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 15:10 (fifteen years ago)
^^^yep
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:29 (fifteen years ago)
And today Obama met with those wonderful Republican leaders who have redefined the Bush tax cut battles as follows:
Republicans got the message voters have been delivering for more than a year. That's why we made a pledge to America to cut spending, rein in government, and permanently extend the current tax rates so small-business owners won't get hit with a massive tax hike at the end of December. That's what Americans want. And that's the message Republicans will bring to the meeting today. In other words, you'll have a voice at that table.
The Dems in Congress of course are not sticking together. Schumer's pushing his own compromise that will just have tax raes go back up for those who make more than a million, rather than 250,000.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
lol McCain
he's kinda worse now than he's ever been
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
as is Chuck Schumer
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
schumers always been an unlikeable hack but fuck him for this
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:01 (fifteen years ago)
Mom said she saw him and his security detail at the Blue Water Grill not too long ago.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:04 (fifteen years ago)
Chuck Schumer, King of All Limousine Liberals and Wall Street's Perpetual Chew Toy.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 19:49 (fifteen years ago)
gates doesn't just lay out the findings of the study, but asks congress to act to end DADT quickly.
cautious optimism over here
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:33 (fifteen years ago)
Washington Post is reporting Obama is negotiating a deal with the Republicans in which he will agree to a "temporary" extension of tax cuts for the rich in exchange for a vote on START.
What a lame deal.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:38 (fifteen years ago)
waiting for Yoink!!!
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
start is well worth getting imo
it's hard bargaining with insane people...
xp yeah Ed otm
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
Obama seems like he's trying real hard to make sure he's a one-term president.
― Ignore Me! (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)
Yoink?
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:45 (fifteen years ago)
temporary extension = kick it down the road to '12/make it an election issue
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:50 (fifteen years ago)
yoink = senate GOP takes the tax cuts and then refuses to approve start anyway. i wouldn't be surprised.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
jimmy carter, v. 2.0. just like i always feared.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)
nah O's gonna kill it in '12. Republicans have nobody who can win on the national stage.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
Speaking of: Jimmy Carter visits White House to reassure Obama that "one-term presidents aren't such losers".
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
I thought this was overrated since the cold war is over. Plus, he could get it without this compromise on something he had campaigned on.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
at this point it seems like obama needs start just to convince the rest of the world that hes in charge
― max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
perhaps this is a little bit mandarin-ish, but having an arms control and inspection treaty between the no1 and no2 nuclear powers not get re-upped pushes us a few steps down toward thunderdome. nonproliferation is serious business.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
^^^agree with goole. START is leverage against Iran.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:01 (fifteen years ago)
So the DADT report is, um, out. Gates to Senate: choose your poison.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)
interesting that one of Gates' arguments is that this is gonna get overturned by the courts anyway
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
Talking Points Media.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
btw, why is the FBI 'stopping' a phony bombing they engineered in Portland anything but a sick joke? bcz it involved a jerkwad teen who probably couldn't damage a houseplant?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)
the Republicans are willing to play games on Start (no matter how crucial some think it is re non-proliferation), and will do whatever they can to get Obama to blink and cave on rich people taxes. And their approach appears to be working.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:34 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, because its hard to negotiate with actually insane people
― max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:37 (fifteen years ago)
insane or reckless.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:38 (fifteen years ago)
Unemplyment benefits are expiring too, will a lopsided deal be made with Republicans on this too?
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2115-Unemployment-Benefits-Expire-What-Will-Congress-Do-
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:39 (fifteen years ago)
probably
― max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:40 (fifteen years ago)
Democrats have replaced the French as surrender monkeys, if youve noticed
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:40 (fifteen years ago)
maybe they should just let unemployment benefits expire, to show republicans we're rock-ribbed tough?
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:41 (fifteen years ago)
not trying to be a dick; sorry for the tone. but a lot of people desperately rely on unemployment benefits. i'm very wary about toying with them in a negotiation.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:42 (fifteen years ago)
There shouldn't even be a discussion of negotiations on unemployment benefit extensions until we get unemployment under control. Its just callous in a way I don't think even the GOP wants to be seen as.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:51 (fifteen years ago)
but who knows anymore, they are all tea party crazies now.
they believe that if you subsidize unemployment you get unemployment
if you talk to them, this is what they tell you
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:56 (fifteen years ago)
right on cue, here's John Shadegg:
BARNICLE: What about the fact that unemployment benefits pumped into the economy are an immediate benefit to the economy? Immediate…
SHADEGG: No, they’re not! Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that.
BARNICLE: Unemployed people spend money Congressman, ’cause they have no money.
SHADEGG: Aha! So your answer is it’s the spending of money that drives the economy and I don’t think that’s right. It’s the creation of jobs that drives the economy…Actually, the truth is the unemployed will spend as little of that money as they possibly can. Job creators create jobs.
BARNICLE: Have you ever been unemployed? Have you ever been unemployed?
SHADEGG: Yes, I have.
BARNICLE: What did you do with the money? Save it?
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 21:59 (fifteen years ago)
lol zings
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
I nearly stuck my fist through the monitor reading that.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:03 (fifteen years ago)
clipped here
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/shadegg-scoffs/
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
extending Bush tax cuts for the wealthy apparently not as popular as GOP claims:http://factcheck.org/2010/11/tax-cuts-and-americans-its-complicated/
and most of their arguments have been shot to shit:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/23/top-5-falsehoods-about-bush-tax-cuts/
so why the fuck is this even like a thing
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:08 (fifteen years ago)
is that a rhetorical question
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:08 (fifteen years ago)
because obama is going to single handedly destroy all small business on earth if he goes forward with the largest tax increase in the history of mankind, thats why
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:14 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:20 (4 hours ago)
I don't see a problem with this as long as there's a middle class tax vote held separately so the republicans are on record with their priorities. In terms of actually getting something through the Senate I think this is ok.
Plus a millionaire's tax would be a tough thing for republicans to oppose, no matter how much they talk about "small business owners."
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:23 (fifteen years ago)
the million dollar mark helps the PR and makes the tax increase easier to sell, but that's about all you can say for it
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:29 (fifteen years ago)
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:56 PM (1 hour ago)
ha iirc you were pretty confident that dems wouldn't lose either house this year
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
you do not recall correctly
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:43 (fifteen years ago)
my expectation was that while they would lose seats, Republican gains were being heavily overstated in the run up to the election. and that while the Dems might lose the House they probably wouldn't lose both the House and Senate.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
they = the Dems in that first sentence obviously. sorry. trying to do several things at once lol
if you think Fuckabee, Palin, Mittens, or the Newtster can beat Obama I have a bridge to sell you
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
http://homepage.mac.com/cssfan/jackfinney/img/col501007.jpg
― buzza, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:49 (fifteen years ago)
Some 4-headed transplant monster combining all their best "attributes" might have a shot...
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:50 (fifteen years ago)
president thune, vice president rubio
― kamerad, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:50 (fifteen years ago)
helllooooo Photoshop
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:52 (fifteen years ago)
Palin's boobs, Fuckabee's bass, Newt's forehead, Mittens' teeth
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)
^^^GOP black magic potion recipe
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:54 (fifteen years ago)
Haha, I was thinking Mitt's economic conservatism, Huck's social, with Palin's you-betcha populism. Guided by the brain of Newt...
BTW, Politico on Thune:
For those in the GOP who aren't giddy about a second Mitt Romney run and aren't sold on the viability of Tim Pawlenty, Thune represents a mainstream conservative alternative.
Tall, handsome, not yet 50 and with the sort of sunny demeanor that winning national Republicans usually possess, the former high school hoops star looks the part.
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:56 (fifteen years ago)
GOP black magic potion recipe:
1 brain of Newt...
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
don't laugh too much at thune:
“There is a whole body of literature that says snap judgments matter,” Wolfers said. “If you show people 30-second clips of candidates with the volume off on TV, you can do a better job forecasting the outcome than you can if you know the state of the economy. Looking presidential is important.”
key to GOP primary imo.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
I hope governor fatboy (nj) runs
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
I confused Politico with Teen Beat, as usual.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:02 (fifteen years ago)
I still think ith too Thune to thay.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:03 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, I think Thune can take a good run at it, but I got as far as "tied with Haley Barbour" and I had to laugh.
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
f you show people 30-second clips of candidates with the volume off on TV, you can do a better job forecasting the outcome than you can if you know the state of the economy
holy shit what a fucking ignornant numbnuts!! who is this fucking shit for brains and why are journalists talking to him!!! my gosh!!
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:07 (fifteen years ago)
i know i know it's just... ostensibly non-partisan fact checkers are dismantling GOP arguments, and everybody (besides omg socialists) are like eh whatevs.
ftr I'm totally on board with another tax bracket for those doing $500,000 or 1 mil/ year+
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:27 (fifteen years ago)
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/photos/wolfers_justin-300dpi_400pxh_cr.jpg
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
There is a whole body of literature that teaches you how to hone your telepathic abilities as well.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:58 (fifteen years ago)
how hottt is this body of literature
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:59 (fifteen years ago)
smokin hot albeit in a nickelback on ipod sorta way
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 00:02 (fifteen years ago)
Aha! So your answer is it’s the spending of money that drives the economy and I don’t think that’s right
― max, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:29 (fifteen years ago)
he seems stupid. or maybe -- even after electoral victory -- this is what the GOP has been reduced to, intellectually and philosophically.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:30 (fifteen years ago)
iirc shadegg is being succeeded by... ben quayle
― max, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:30 (fifteen years ago)
shocker: Lieberman loves Fox
LIEBERMAN: But of course, really, Fox Business is my favorite and Fox generally, anything Rupert Murdoch owns.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 03:36 (fifteen years ago)
aw he even loves himself
― iatee, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 03:37 (fifteen years ago)
How is it possible to keep up the charade of caucusing with Democrats when "anything Rupert Murdoch owns" is your favorite?
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 03:37 (fifteen years ago)
I also love this hard hitting NYT analysis that concludes that democrats have no choice except to do whatever republicans want
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 03:39 (fifteen years ago)
the people have spoken and they're tired of the liberal agenda, dinchaknow
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 03:55 (fifteen years ago)
if this has already been posted here, i apologize.
disgusting. so much for "change we can believe in."
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 04:13 (fifteen years ago)
GOP Senate Pledges Block on Lame Duck Bills:http://www.frumforum.com/gop-senate-pledges-block-on-lame-duck-bills
"If carried out, it would doom Democratic-backed attempts to end the Pentagon’s practice of discharging openly gay members of the military service and give legal status to young illegal immigrants who join the military or attend college."
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 14:47 (fifteen years ago)
David Frum:
http://www.frumforum.com/why-romney-huckabee-are-leading-the-pack
When I mention Romney on this thread, two or three people will quickly jump on to say he can't win the nomination because of the health care issue. I still think that because he's a bland and as safe as can be, the closer you get to the election--and, depending upon Obama and the economy, the more the Republicans may end up realizing it's their election to lose--the more he will look like the way to go. Even Rubio, if you're in perfect position to win, may end up seeming like an unnecessary risk to a party that above all else wants to win. Not to mention all the potential wingnut candidates.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw Im a huge hater of our plutocratic overlords but it does seem like the economy is on the upswing and could be better than reprehensible come the next election.. which is kinda good news.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:48 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i just have this feeling that it's going to be the third jobless recovery in a row
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:51 (fifteen years ago)
Highest Corporate Profits Ever Recorded in American History, Q3 2010:
http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/11/the-real-story-behind-those-re.html
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:53 (fifteen years ago)
If the economy does take a pronounced turn for the better (which would have to include a tangible drop in the unemployment rate), and Obama's fortunes improve, that's where I could see the Republicans doing one of two things: taking a high risk/high payoff chance with somebody like Rubio, or melting down and going with--well, you know who.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:59 (fifteen years ago)
Dr. Evil?
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:59 (fifteen years ago)
Reagan.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
i think the economy improving would be a huge moral good no matter what happens politically. i have no idea how that will happen tho.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
GOP Senate Pledges Block on Lame Duck Bills:
quality governing here, btw
looking forward to the gov't shutdown this spring
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
Reagan
I was thinking of Zombie Reagan, but very close.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:13 (fifteen years ago)
digby goin ham
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/grand-bargains-for-dummies.html
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
i dont get that post, or the president's plan. where does the money come from to cover both wealthy tax cuts & unemployment insurance?
fwiw if it were possible to do both i would have no problem w/ doing it if it extended unemployment benefits, even if it meant the GOP could 'take credit.' like, so? get better at messaging & earn the credit yrself. Or take the credit for the bipartisan compromise. either way, sustaining unemployment >>>> playing chicken with unemployment
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:22 (fifteen years ago)
this kind of crap where "we lose on unemployment, but at least we didnt extend the bush tax cuts!!" -- if that were possible to do -- say, but cutting the defense budget -- i kinda would prefer it? being against the bush tax cuts isnt my 'line in the sand' as much as unemployment or a bloated defense budget would be
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
*by cutting the defense budget
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:24 (fifteen years ago)
China
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)
he also caveats that it wd be in a fiscally responsible way, though. confusing
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:32 (fifteen years ago)
Picking the pockets of poor people.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:32 (fifteen years ago)
at any rate, lol @ k3v butt-patting any article that exists solely to call the president a wuss
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)
recovery yes, with jobs no. I had this epiphany the other day that after a couple decades of staggering productivity increases, our corporate overlords used the financial crisis as cover to drop the hammer on all these folks they could have done without a long time ago. those jobs are gone forever.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)
I think a recovery will include a marked uptick in employment that will feel like relief, but won't be enough to dig us out of the deep hole we are in.
― Moodles, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)
where's Rahm when you need him?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)
our corporate overlords used the financial crisis as cover to drop the hammer on all these folks they could have done without a long time ago. those jobs are gone forever.
The urge to compete globally is necessary but decimating your consumer base at home isn't exactly the wisest strategy.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
nice Mike Pence quote:
I think the minimum we have to do for Americans right now that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure no American sees a tax increase.
― mc souleye (brownie), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:20 (fifteen years ago)
not one single american.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:22 (fifteen years ago)
let's all do a Buy Nothing Christmas
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)
May be, by default. Planning how to make garlands out of the pages of free advance copies of books from work.
― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
Don't forget that old standby: stringing popcorn on thread.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
I have friends who hold a popcorn-and-cranberry stringing party for their tree every year. They reason, quite rightly, that having something to keep their hands busy makes all their alcoholic friends go a little easier on the cocktails (and there are ALWAYS cocktails), plus everything is safe for their cat to eat, if that happens to happen. Is a total hit.
― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:53 (fifteen years ago)
And cut-paper snowflakes, we all have to make those, too. The hostess saves them from year to year, and every year there's a fight over the "most beautiful" for bragging rights. Seriously, if you like Christmas and you like to host things, do this. It's such a brilliant idea.
― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:54 (fifteen years ago)
which, incidentally, was the nature of the recovery in the early/mid-80s. unemployment went down to "only" 7% or so (after being over 10%). and yes, a lot of the jobs that disappeared during that recession never did come back.
as for jobs leaving now -- given how Obama can't even put the screws to Boehner and McConnell, i doubt he can put the screws to China or India for stealing American jobs.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
what would doing that entail?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 20:47 (fifteen years ago)
first step would be purchasing several billion screws from China and India, presumably
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
thermonuclear war?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)
i meant "putting the screws" somewhat metaphorically, though the threat that China and India pose to future American prosperity is very real.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
Ted Strickland: Democrats Suffering From 'Intellectual Elitism'
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:28 (fifteen years ago)
"I mean, if we can't win that argument we might as well just fold up," he said. "These people are saying we are going to insist on tax cuts for the richest people in the country and we don't care if they are paid for, and we don't think it is a problem if it contributes to the deficit, but we are not going to vote to extend unemployment benefits to working people if they aren't paid for because they contribute to the deficit. I mean, what is wrong with that? How can it be more clear?"
this is OTFM
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)
"But his frustration was evident as the discussion progressed. Talking, unprompted, about the debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts, Strickland said he was dumbfounded at the party's inability to sell the idea that the rates for the wealthy should be allowed to expire."
This assumes that Obama & his people believe "that the rates for the wealthy should be allowed to expire". Follow the money.
― Euler, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:32 (fifteen years ago)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/fail-dems-unconstitutional-mishap-could-kill-food-safety-bill.php
Useless, cretinous morons. I give you, the Democrats! (Senate branch)
― carson dial, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
what's actually in the food bill, btw? i saw all kinds of alarmist omg u can't grow tomatoes at home anymore sorta stuff popping up on the web. like, joel salatin territory, where the weenie locavores and the rural libertarians sit down and eat a chicken someone killed in the backyard
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:52 (fifteen years ago)
a lot of convoluted guidelines giving the FDA broader authority over various sectors of the ag industry (some of which would seem to conflict with other departments' jurisdictions), also some increased reporting requirements on the part of food producers. This latter issue was a major bone of contention for the organic/locavore sorta outfits, who lobbied hard (and got) an exemption on the grounds that it would crush their nascent industry and besides for the most part these food outbreaks have been the result of massive agribusiness operations, not small-scale farms.
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:00 (fifteen years ago)
ok, thx
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:08 (fifteen years ago)
the result of massive agribusiness operations
can you explain this?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:09 (fifteen years ago)
dude, really?
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:10 (fifteen years ago)
Yes. I'm not being skeptical -- I just thought the phrase was vague.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:11 (fifteen years ago)
okay, latest example - salmonella outbreak. traced to a huge peanut processing plant that sold peanut paste to a wide variety of industrial food production facilities which subsequently got into an insanely wide variety of commercial food products. Because of the scale of the operation, the contaminated peanuts spread very far, very quickly. By contrast, a small-scale organic farmer's peanuts are a) less prone to contamination just by virtue of the size of their operation allowing for more careful management of their product and b) less likely to facilitate the spread of any contaminated product by virtue of only selling it within a limited radius (ie, farmer's markets, CSA boxes, local restaurants, etc.).
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:16 (fifteen years ago)
in general, small scale organic farmers do not engage in the economic model that facilitates this kind of criminal behavior
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:18 (fifteen years ago)
xp and most of yr recent (past few years) E Coli O157:H7 outbreaks have been via bovine products (ground beef eg), iirc, and 2/2 the conditions under which cows are slaughtered. locally raised cattle can and often do pass thru the same slaughterhouses that "industrial" cows, but as shakey points out, their area of influence is a lot smaller. but if yr a big meat company and shipping disgusting beef from e colorado to everywhere in the country, a disgusting kill floor can mean bad things for a whole lot of people
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:20 (fifteen years ago)
OK, thanks. Makes sense.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:20 (fifteen years ago)
more quality governing in action
let's just feed 'em ketchup (it's a vegetable!) and soda
― a big influence on me in a non-stabbing non-killing way (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
fucking hell
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 00:59 (fifteen years ago)
jesus we are fucking doomed
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 01:52 (fifteen years ago)
that is OTFM, but I'm sad to say I'm more repulsed by Americans who are falling for the GOP "argument" and end up voting against their own interests, time and time again. What a terrible ironic collective national fuckup this is, people getting played by industry front groups and astroturf campaigns to fuck over low-income families and cut taxes for rich people
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:10 (fifteen years ago)
sorry but among whom are the democrats "losing" that argument? i feel like ive lost the thread of this debate entirely--ending the tax cuts for the rich is unpopular, right? it seems to me the democrats actually have "won" that argument among "the people"
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
haha, yeah, I guess they're losing it to beltway pundits and cable and radio talk hosts. at this point. didn't a poll recently come out showing that a plurality of voters (49%) opposed tax cuts for those making above $250,000, and another 15% supporting ending ALL of the tax cuts, for the wealthy and those with lower income.
But isn't this what happened with health care, too? At various points near the beginning and middle of the agonizing legislative, there were all these polls showing that regardless of what the beltway meme was, that most people actually supported health care reform. And I'm sure that was true. And then after months straight of just total bullshit lying from pundits and politicians, the tide swung against health care, for real. And hell, just googling gallup+healthcare just now reveals that the vast majority of Americans (82%) think their health care is either "excellent" or "good", despite the fact that we're getting SCREWED relative to most other industrialized countries.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:31 (fifteen years ago)
i guess yeah they've "lost" the argument to the pundit class but well what do you expect? the pundit class is 80% sub-literate. i mean for christs sake ted strickland i wouldnt want to support a party that wins arguments among "the pundit class."
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:36 (fifteen years ago)
i think hcr is a little difft--people love "health care reform" in the abstract but were inevitably going to hate the specific legislation
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:38 (fifteen years ago)
wasn't it the opposite? that a sizable # of ppl shuddered at "health care reform" but when you polled the actual policies it was pretty popular?
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:55 (fifteen years ago)
Yes
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:56 (fifteen years ago)
i think were arguing about different things--at the start of the health care reform process it was pretty well agreed among voters that health care reform was "good." by the end of the process health care reform was "bad"--less because they stopped wanting "reform" and more because theyd been sold on the concept that this specific hcr bill was, you know, socialist, or whatever. iirc most polls still show that people "want" "health care reform" of some kind or another AND that "obamacare" is "unpopular" AND that the specific provisions of "obamacare" with the exception of the individual mandate are "popular"
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 03:53 (fifteen years ago)
by which mostly i mean this all depends on what you/the pollsters/the people answering the polls mean by "health care reform" and why they think its "good" or "bad"
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 03:57 (fifteen years ago)
I doubt most people even know there's an individual mandate.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
"most people"... in us? "most people"... who follow politics? "most people"... who vote? "most people"... who vote republican?
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:09 (fifteen years ago)
after "pre-existing conditions" i'd bet the individual mandate is the most well-known part of the bill actually
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:18 (fifteen years ago)
id bet the individual mandate is "better known" that pre-existing conditions among likely voters, people who say they follow politics, etc
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:19 (fifteen years ago)
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:23 (fifteen years ago)
maybe now that it's passed and it's been the main target for the bill's opponents
i forget why we're even talking about this tho
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:26 (fifteen years ago)
wait---among "likely voters," "people who say they follow politics," sure, ok.
everyone else cares/knows about the pre-existing conditions part
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:27 (fifteen years ago)
is that anecdotal or
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:29 (fifteen years ago)
inasmuch as that's what patients/"old people i know" are worried about, yeah, i guess it's anecdotal. or, rather, ppl i talk to are fukkin fingers-crossed for when/if pre-existing conditions are covered no matter what
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:45 (fifteen years ago)
nb - i'm not entirely sure what the "discussion" is here, i kinda wandered in. but if the question is "what part of 'obamacare' does the average person know and/or care about?" the answer is "coverage for pre-existing conditions." without question.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:47 (fifteen years ago)
41% didn't know about the individual mandate in September (though there was a high percentage that wasn't sure about it either way).
http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/Health%20Reform%20Topline%20for%20Posting.pdf
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:53 (fifteen years ago)
bullshit internet survey imo
― iatee, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:56 (fifteen years ago)
there is nooooo way that 60% of americans know about the mandate
― iatee, Thursday, 2 December 2010 04:57 (fifteen years ago)
ahahahahaha, yeah, for real. i'm sure six out of every ten people you meet tomorrow will be able to explain to you what the individual mandate is.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 05:00 (fifteen years ago)
yeah sorry this is completely tangential to what i was wondering about before but just to add some numbers to the tangent here: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/what-people-know
thats from january but it seems like yes, guaranteed issue has a higher q rating than the mandate--but both are trumped by subsidy assistance, increased taxes, etc. "lol america"
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 05:00 (fifteen years ago)
― max, Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:21 AM (2 hours ago)
Yes, but we have lost the argument in the White House and in Congress. Those Dems are caving on this.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 December 2010 05:04 (fifteen years ago)
"caving" would imply that they once felt differently
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 05:05 (fifteen years ago)
w/ surveys like that I often get the feeling that a lot of people are lucky guessers - like, let's say we're talking about this 10 years ago and they asked would liberal health care reform likely entail? 'subsidy assistance to individuals' and 'increased income taxes on the wealthy' are the easiest, most obvious answers, even if you haven't been paying any attention at all.
― iatee, Thursday, 2 December 2010 05:06 (fifteen years ago)
*they asked 'what would liberal health care likely entail?'
omfg make it stop
I know the McConnell speech and the letter signed by all 42 republican senators isn't that surprising considering the last few years, but the transparency of their utter disregard for integrity, combined with how easily half of this country is duped into supporting it, is nauseating.
Compare/contrast the democratic response:
“If anybody’s been paying attention, they would understand that our friends across the aisle have been blocking everything, including motherhood and apple pie for the last year,” Ms. McCaskill said. She derided Mr. Barrasso for accusing the Democrats of engaging in theater. “Theater is having 42 senators say we will not participate unless you do what we want to do today,” she said. “That’s theater.”
Hmmm...sounds about right. What do you have to add, Obama? It might be a good time to highlight that a tax cut for 98% of Americans, a food safety bill, and the extension of jobless benefits is being held hostage by 42 people who want to cut taxes for rich people and increase the deficit, for starters...
“Nobody wants to see taxes on middle-class families go up starting Jan. 1, and so there’s going to be some lingering politics that have to work themselves out in all the caucuses, Democrat and Republican,” Mr. Obama said. “But at the end of the day, I think that people of good will can come together.”
Oh. Onh. oomgh..unghhh...iichhh
PUKE PUKE PUKE PUKE PUKEPUKE PUKE PUKE PUKE PUKEFUCK YOU
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:03 (fifteen years ago)
In my dream world Obama and the Dems would stick together on this, and they would get favorable media attention, and the Republicans would back down.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:13 (fifteen years ago)
New theory: Obama has been watching a little too much ESPN and the vacuous nature of most sports interviews is starting to infect his political statements.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:16 (fifteen years ago)
New theory: The American political machine is hopelessly broken.
― captayn cronch (crüt), Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:17 (fifteen years ago)
"new"
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:35 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW20AlC0IbA
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:44 (fifteen years ago)
ending the tax cuts for the rich is unpopular, right? it seems to me the democrats actually have "won" that argument among "the people"
yes, and as usual, they don't want the "victory"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
yep
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:08 (fifteen years ago)
- bi-partisan commission is all "ayo we're prob going to need to let tax cuts expire"- brain behind Reaganomics David Stockman all over the place saying "might be best if tax cuts expire. GOP needs to get a grip"- public opinion = let the tax cuts expire on the wealthy- non-partisan fact-checkers blow up every GOP argument for keeping Bush tax cuts in place for the $250,000+ set.
...Dems: "Thank you for the load in the eye, GOP daddy. may I have another?"
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:20 (fifteen years ago)
isn't it the case that - as with HCR - americans in toto appear to support the progressive option i.e. ending tax breaks for the rich - but that specific constituencies will punish specific senators if they vote "aye"?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:21 (fifteen years ago)
did i just blow the collective minds of MSNBC with that post or what
maddow's going to have to rewrite her whole show
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:26 (fifteen years ago)
No – it's the case that, as with HCR, the Dems are pussies.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:26 (fifteen years ago)
still keep parsing that as Hillary Clinton-Rodham
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:28 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i really cant quite figure out how the democrats managed to blow this one so badly but they really only have themselves to blame
the obvious answer of course is that they... actually want to keep the tax cuts on the wealthy.
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:34 (fifteen years ago)
it might be pussy to vote on legislation in such a way that you don't get your ass handed to you in the next election, sure. but it's far from an inexplicable stance, which what what a lot of "liberal" comment about congress makes it out to be - i.e. "the public WANTS this stuff, so why aren't senators voting for it?? are they DUMB?" no, they're not dumb. they just want to get re-elected. (i'm sure there are cases where a different dynamic obtains - i.e. they actually WANT to blow a bigger hole in the deficit and keep tax cuts for the wealthy - but i would imagine this is the main one)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:35 (fifteen years ago)
So what if Obama asked the networks for air time and explained, point by point, how perfidious the GOP has been with these tax cut and unemployment benefits?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:41 (fifteen years ago)
he's done too much of that "take it to the people" schtick already.. he needs to take it to congress, twist some arms, ask nancy pelosi for a spine loan, govern the shit out of the situation
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
all this contradictory back seat driving is confusing
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:55 (fifteen years ago)
best just to accept that it's a lost cause
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:57 (fifteen years ago)
i wish obama had a proxy to go out and do rhetorical violence to the gop. who could he possibly throw out there to do this work? it's too bad presidents don't have junior officers whose job it is to get their hands dirty and engage the opposition directly and forcefully.
― Fox generally, anything Stuart Murdoch owns (Hunt3r), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:58 (fifteen years ago)
Chief of staff?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
it's too bad presidents don't have junior officers whose job it is to get their hands dirty and engage the opposition directly and forcefully.
this is a job that usually goes to the vp
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:05 (fifteen years ago)
yeah my comment was aimed at the veep
― Fox generally, anything Stuart Murdoch owns (Hunt3r), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:07 (fifteen years ago)
those mean enforcers Dan Quayle and George H.W. Bush.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:08 (fifteen years ago)
its not so much that i expect biden ninja assassin, but- where is this man of the people (by which i mean fictitious people who are actually banks in delaware)?
― Fox generally, anything Stuart Murdoch owns (Hunt3r), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:09 (fifteen years ago)
reagan didn't need a legbreaker! HW probably did but tbh i don't know much about his presidency other than vague memories of middle school
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
norman schwartzkopf, remember that guy?
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:12 (fifteen years ago)
Reagan would call lawmakers into the Oval Office and bore them so thoroughly with Hollywood anecdotes read off notecards that they'd be scared of opposing him
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:16 (fifteen years ago)
McCain's ability to make me loathe him more and more never fails to astound me.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:09 (fifteen years ago)
The House GOP just abolished the Select Committee on Global Warming, the committee created to hold hearings on global warming.
These are the fucking Dark Ages.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)
gotta love how they considered keeping the committee open as a tool to expose "abuses" of the Obama administration.
priorities!
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:24 (fifteen years ago)
Just remember folks, when you local eco-system collapses in 40 years or your town is under water, that your Republican party shut down the Select Committee on Global Warming to make sure that those millionaires they were extending tax cuts to knew how fiscally responsible the party was.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)
i'm not even sure i can get angry about this stuff anymore, it's all just so mind-bogglingly ~stupid~
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
i think the GOP is saying they want to conduct a huge ongoing AGW experiment in real time, if you get my meaning.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
The fact is that in 40 years few will remember that this or that republican obstructed, delayed, equivocated for no reason, or shut down a committee. Same with big oil, front groups, etc. They'll just know that we knew the scale of the problem and did virtually nothing, and the blame will fall primarily on Obama.
Fucking LEAD, man
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:35 (fifteen years ago)
iirc we all voted for the dude who was all abt ~togetherness~ not partisan rancor. obv obama is bombing on some significant issues but isnt a significant portion of this leftist therapy type ish like "man if only hed agree with us that the GOP is stupid, then hed really be fighting!" kind of stuff
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:58 (fifteen years ago)
i mean how much is just about perception
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:59 (fifteen years ago)
if HRC was in their bashing the vast right wing conspiracy would we be any better off
gah in *there*
what
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)
My Dark Twisted President.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:03 (fifteen years ago)
iirc we all voted for the dude who was all abt ~togetherness~ not partisan rancor. obv obama is bombing on some significant issues but isnt a significant portion of this leftist therapy type ish like "man if only hed agree with us that the GOP is stupid, then hed really be fighting!" kind of stuff― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:58 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:58 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
what does this mean
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:04 (fifteen years ago)
oh who cares
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
for starters, i didn't vote for the dude that was about togetherness, i voted for the guy that i thought would act on issues i care about.
so, yeah, it is aggravating when he "doesnt agree" with me because i voted under the assumption that he did! because he said so!
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
also this is otm:
that's the awful insidious thing about opposition in the name of short-term gains. the bad guys reap the benefit and are lost to history. we won't even get to remember them as villains, they'll just disappear. but everyone will look back and say 'wait why didn't anyone DO anything?'
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:07 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know about that. History remembers who supported slavery and who opposed the civil rights movement, for ex.
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
in a similar vein, it isn't hard to trace the enablers of the Great Depression either
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:09 (fifteen years ago)
Only people who post to politics threads know about that stuff.
― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:11 (fifteen years ago)
maybe so, but environmental degradation is death by papercut. it's tough to point at any specific piece of failed legislation and say "THAT's when we shat the bed. and those guys are responsible, specifically." instead you have to take a wider look and go "wtf were we all thinking, who was asleep at the wheel here?"
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:12 (fifteen years ago)
you don't HAVE to, just that we may end up doing just that.
well, just that, imo, a lot of this "i wish he'd just stand up and tell the nation..." type wishful thinking is more in line with "why isnt there a fox news for the LEFT"-type therapy rather than an actual political tactic? i guess id just like to recognize the difference sometimes when ppl get mad at him. i also remember the campaign where everyone was all "i wish he'd stand up and fight hillary! hes too laconic & an egghead." then he won anyway
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:13 (fifteen years ago)
i'm still glad an adult is president and not a man-child. if you populate offices with more adults and less children I feel like a lot of problems will sort themselves out eventually. though it is tempting to imagine what a bizarro-world GWB would be like.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:14 (fifteen years ago)
im mad at him about the stuff directly in his control / straight up wrong, where the political downside is minimal compared to the ethical wrong, i.e. rendition / guantanamo / civil liberties / lazy AG. to be clear
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:14 (fifteen years ago)
As the pundits never fail to remind us, differences exist between campaigning and governing.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:15 (fifteen years ago)
like it reminds me of ppl who were seriously in favor of edwards bcuz of his supposed populism, who didnt recognize that as tactical positioning
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:15 (fifteen years ago)
also i hope yall realize this is devil's advocate to a degree, bcuz id rather have a better articulated argument here & it helps me think thru my own positions. i mean it would certainly make me feel better if obama took an adult posture & told the GOP to settle down children, or whatever, but im trying to sort out how much of me thinks that bcuz it would make me feel better, and how much is actual tactical advantage to this approach
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:19 (fifteen years ago)
wtf the complaint is that obama, specifically, is a bad negotiator, and has never quite gotten the measure of people he's fighting. and the democrats (senators esp) have big collective action problems, which is an age-old thing but especially infuriating when you have (had) huge majorities. none of this is about acting like a cable pundit.
i think he really does believe all the post-partisan purple america crap, but that's another question entirely.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:20 (fifteen years ago)
"devil's advocate to a degree" eh bait taken i guess. whoops!
wtf the complaint is that obama, specifically, is a bad negotiator,
Even with the bills he's passed, nothing I've read in the last eighteen months has refuted this.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:22 (fifteen years ago)
im not trying to troll tho, im genuinely wondering about this stuff! the "obama is a bad leader" thing seems 'right' but also feels like 'received wisdom' because basically everyone on the left agrees about it.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:22 (fifteen years ago)
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:23 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:22 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark
yeah but the thing is, im not convinced youd acknowledge a good one if it did pass. (& by 'good one' i mean, 'one that could reasonably be passed through our insane system' not 'ideal leftist wishlist.') I mean if you measure the success of health care / financial reform / stimulus by GOP anger they're all totally successful
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:23 (fifteen years ago)
'you' meaning specifically alfred
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:24 (fifteen years ago)
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:23 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark
...weve passed more liberal legislation than any admin in 30+ years...?
i know, i say that all the time
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:25 (fifteen years ago)
im trying to evaluate the degree to which this is about how we arent feeling like we get to gloat about this stuff, rather than a grimly level-headed look at what is actually possible. forgive my cynicism
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)
which president in living memory has been a good leader without having some fatal flaw that undid their good leadership?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)
a grimly level-headed look at what is actually possible.
on a certain level, the scale of some of our problems are probably way beyond our political system's ability to fix, but this gets into philosophical territory pretty quickly about what is even fixable.
the issue is, a "grimly level-headed" look at the president says we could all be getting a lot more, even out of the present moment. better deals are "actually possible". how much more? who knows.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:30 (fifteen years ago)
yah i mean i guess getting angry makes more sense theraputically than just putting up w/ status quo dem behavior .......... should we take bets on DADT by the end of the year?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:32 (fifteen years ago)
ill let the dadt repeal be my 'line in the sand' at least as far as my ilx persona goes. no more 'maybe things arent as bad as they seem considering what is possible'-type posts die if DADT doesnt pass by the end of the year (or the AG drops their opposition to the related court case)
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:37 (fifteen years ago)
by contrast if Congress gets to DADT (anyone watching McCain behave batshittily this afternoon by the way?) and lets the tax cuts expire on the rich, I'll look at him (and them) more favorably.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
I think they can fight the Repubs threat of shutdown by moving now and showing that the Repubs are more interested in partisan advantage than the welfare of the nation.
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:41 (fifteen years ago)
lol demanding two issues rather than one. not fair
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20101202/pl_yblog_exclusive/anti-earmark-tea-party-caucus-takes-1-billion-in-earmarks
― Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. (Michael White), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)
DADT or any number of other things could be acted upon if the senate were a working body, but it isn't. it is currently being held hostage by the GOP stance on rich-people tax cuts. if and when that gets resolved, it will be held hostage over some other thing.
it could be made to work, if D senators were of one mind and could act accordingly, but they aren't, on any issue. it could also be made to work if the rules changes were forced through, but that won't happen either, because its exactly the kind of ruthless "dirty trick" (read: use of procedural powers as needed) that democrats seem deathly allergic to (except saint nancy).
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:45 (fifteen years ago)
i've probably posted something like that at least 40 times in the last two years, christ.
someone? klein maybe? was being hopeful that the rich-people-tax-cut-senate-hostage-taking thing would be the final straw to enact procedural reforms
― max, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:47 (fifteen years ago)
oh no, tax cuts for rich people, senate democrats will never swallow something so onerous!
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:48 (fifteen years ago)
Folks with GOP family, friends: are you noticing any discomfort among them by the rising wave of batshittery within their party, maybe the seeds of defection or at least disinterest in the future of GOP?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)
This happened in family with my dad after Clinton's first term. Basically, if businesses prosper underneath a president, he will vote for them, and while he grew up a Republican he came to believe in the 90s that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party was tangibly better for US businesses than the Republican Party and has voted Democrat (or lol Independent) in every election since 1996.
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
Did your dad vote for Ventura?
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
he shocked the world
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
Obama being "an adult," in his way, isn't doing jackshit for any of us. The rationalizations are sad. He's just another asshole.
The American political machine is hopelessly broken.
John McCain has been repeating this for 20 years, so I'd suggest it's running just fine, from the POV of the people who bought it.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
My father flirts with conservative views, but voted for Obama because of Bush's wars. Over Thanksgiving both he & my mother let me know how disappointed they are with Obama's failure to end the wars. I don't think they'd vote for him again at this point---though they also made us watch Dancing With The Stars so that they could watch Palin's daughter lose; they are very anti-Palin apparently. So if the GOP puts her up in 2012, I think my parents will vote for Obama, and otherwise at this point I doubt it. (They live in the deep south so it likely won't matter, in any case.)
― Euler, Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
I can no longer discuss politics with my parents. I know they don't think much of Sarah Palin. On the other hand, Dad proudly voted for Rick Scott.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
ha no, that was totally my peer group's fault; Dad despises "stunt" candidates like Ventura with the burning fury of a thousand suns
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:02 (fifteen years ago)
i suspect that my parents are probably annoyed by the beck/palin/bachmann batshittery. even so, they're (esp dad) very much of the "starve-the-beast" mentality, so whatever achieves those ends works for them, i guess
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
clinton was the first democrat my dad ever voted for. he could be described as a fiscal conservative -- he was always pro-choice, etc. i think the last republican prez candidate he even had any respect for was dole (maybe) and has long since felt the party has gone to the loonies.
my mom -- also once ostensibly gop -- has become a flaming pinko complete with email forwards, obama parties, canvassing, etc.
― mookieproof, Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
"starve-the-beast" mentality
*fuckit, maybe my parents ARE the batshit ones
similarly, my parents have always felt that government is out of control, and will put up with whatever the gop thinks is necessary to end obama's disappointing muslim/socialist regime.
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
i have friends who are gop for tax purposes and willing to accept everything else for that cause. some try to rationalize the other stuff away ('isn't the world a better place without saddam?'). but to a certain extent it's just a team sport. i was among them when mccain picked palin and they were excited because they thought it was a winning move. even now i'm not sure they would disavow her, simply because she's on their team.
― mookieproof, Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
i'm going to be very disappointed if the Dems don't push the fuck out of the DADT repeal. i'm thinking exploiting social wedge issues (much like the GOP has for the last 30 years) could prove to be a canny move for them going for. i'm in the asshole of the bible belt and i still can't really think of anyone under 40 who "hates fags" except for people who look like this:
http://cdn.videogum.com/files/2009/09/kcvkatcgnfy.jpg
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:15 (fifteen years ago)
The more I read about it, the more I think this Simpson/Bowles plan, if enacted, could be far more "radical" (and, potentially, positive) than anything Obama's drummed up so far, HCR included. It seems like a set of broadly imposed cuts/sacrifices/tax shifts, getting rid of some loopholes and more or less fixing the tax laws to simplify things a little. Like, exemplifying the rule that it's better to tax more at at lower levels than less at wildly disparate rates, full of exemptions and stuff. Am I reading it wrong? The fact that it's pissing off liberals and conservatives has got to be a step in the right direction, right? I mean, practically speaking?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:16 (fifteen years ago)
*canny move for them going forWARD
― Jesus and yellowcake uranium (will), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:17 (fifteen years ago)
I get that there is an appeal to pretending to be part of a beleaguered minority, but I always thought that the vast appeal to GOP voters was based on a sense of social normalcy, i.e. "I'm not a freak. Voting GOP is what normal people do" and to see the party devolve into a non-stop freakshow would be very alienating I'd imagine.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:24 (fifteen years ago)
obv obama is bombing on some significant issues but isnt a significant portion of this leftist therapy type ish like "man if only hed agree with us that the GOP is stupid, then hed really be fighting!" kind of stuff
Apologies if the conversation has moved on, but I partially agree that some of Obamas problems are a matter of perception. For example as far as the health care bill went, I tried to imagine what would've happened if Hillary were president. Like maybe we would've gotten a slightly better bill or a slightly worse bill or no bill at all, but I'm pretty sure, no matter what the outcome, the left would not have felt betrayed by Hillary Clinton. Partially at least because Hillary didn't have that kind of credibility with the left in the first place, but also, partially because Obama coldly used the public option, and by proxy the left, as a bargaining chip to arrive at the final bill. If the debate were framed differently, the final bill as is might've been something the left could be happy with, but instead Obama drew a line in the sand for the left, and then bargained that position away.
Politically, I really think he needs to change the "Obama caves again" impression, but it's difficult to see him changing that impression now that the Republicans have gained some power. Is he even capable of drawing a line in the sand on a symbolic level?
― Two Red Ducks, Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)
i've largely written off talking to my father about politics. he's been a rock-hard conservative since the early 1990s (Bill Clinton was the last straw for him wr2 the Democratic Party). every now and then, though, he will surprise me by saying something very sensible, usually when it comes to NJ local politics -- e.g., he despises Chris Christie even more than I do and for the right reasons (e.g., Christie is a grandstanding bully, he's unfairly sticking it to state workers/unions). on national politics, though, he's a lost cause.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:55 (fifteen years ago)
The only reason 'the left' feels betrayed by Bam is their fantasizing about who he was. I can't imagine anything wd be much diff under Prez Rodham.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:57 (fifteen years ago)
almost tempted to start a "chris christie: this fuckin' guy" thread
― chris and cosey and ted and alice (donna rouge), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:03 (fifteen years ago)
I'll agree with Morbius's second sentence, but distance myself from the first.
― Two Red Ducks, Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
both of those sentences are pretty OTM
like, dude was a centrist from the beginning, and I think the thing we're seeing now is the difference between a senator and a governer
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
but like 'red ducks' said, its about perception -- hes 'moderate' in the sense that hes pissing off the left, but that doesnt necessarily say anything about where on the political spectrum the actual bills that get passed 'are.' set the public option as the line, piss off the left but get a more leftward bill passed (maybe?) than would have been possible otherwise.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)
And not even a senator who was in office long enough to understand the very, very special place the Senate is.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:23 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/30/national/w132759S97.DTL&tsp=1
this plan seems like total fucking garbage to me. Higher taxes for the poor, lower taxes for the rich, massive cuts in entitlement programs and services. wtf
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:23 (fifteen years ago)
ok, this perception of obama as a naive cipher DEF strikes me as reductive
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:24 (fifteen years ago)
nutrition bill goes to Obama
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:28 (fifteen years ago)
imo nutrition bill > food stamps
/controversial
but i hope they restore food stamps anyway
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:36 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, the funding for them -- obv food stamps entirely being eliminated would be another issue
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:37 (fifteen years ago)
oh Charlie Rangel, shaddap and take yr public chastisement, you contemptible fucking crook.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:43 (5 hours ago)
He can't just make people vote the way he wants through sheer force of personality and leadership. At best he can mold public opinion through the office of presidency and threaten some vetos.
Blaming Obama for things like DADT not getting through is naive-- it's a failure of moderate Democrats (pre-Scott Brown) and a terrifying example of how the Republican party can achieve 100% unity on obstruction.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:40 (fifteen years ago)
who are the heartless cads who were holding out to defund food stamps btw
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
There's plenty to blame Obama for, of course, starting with his civil liberties disasters.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:42 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:06 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark
Well the house passed the middle-class extension. The question is will a Republican allow this "victory" in the Senate?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:45 (fifteen years ago)
ooh it's like a cliffhanger
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:47 (fifteen years ago)
Maybe Obama can twist some arms and get it through.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
if he has to come back there one more time, he's crackin skulls
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:03 (fifteen years ago)
Remember that part in Dave when Kevin Kline gets all those republicans to throw out those earmarks so Sigourney Weaver can open her children's center?
Maybe something like that!
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
Charles Grodin's Pinto was spotted parked next to Biden's camaro iirc.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)
what was that weird "right to work" jobs bill in Dave that Paul Tsongas took credit for?Did he really try to introduce one -- how did it flop?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 2 December 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 00:31 (fifteen years ago)
"Borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend for missiles or food stamps is unsustainable,"
Those must be either some pretty cheap missiles, or really really expensive food stamps.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 06:45 (fifteen years ago)
.40 x 1,000,000,000 = 40,000,000
― JIMMY MOD THE SACK MASTER (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 3 December 2010 06:54 (fifteen years ago)
A NYT piece from a couple of days ago remarked that "Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party." I think that's interesting because I gather most Dem activists didn't think that's what they were voting for, & yet his governing record is consistent with that identification. But this seems like a likely source of the communication/image problems the Obama administration has had. Everyone assumes that he's significantly progressive, & he thinks: I'll show them the truth! & no one believes him. The result is Blue Dog governance for which he can't get the "moderate" credit he seeks, & which alienates the left. So it fails as positioning.
If he loses in 2012 (which I am coming to think is plausible and even likely), the demoralized & demobilized left will be a big factor, as significant a part of the story as the "moderate drift" on which people will fixate. This is why I'm guessing Axelrod's main 2012 strategy at this point is "get the GOP to nominate Palin".
― Euler, Friday, 3 December 2010 13:53 (fifteen years ago)
agreed 100% - i'm grasping at straws tbh
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 13:56 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah but if you're going to pin failures on Congress then why give Obama credit for Health Care Reform? He really sort of let Congress deal with that in their own disfunctional.
Not that you specifically do, but defenders tend to make that stand.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 15:10 (fifteen years ago)
Krugman otm on President Useless T. Firefly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03krugman.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 15:12 (fifteen years ago)
John Dickerson agrees.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 15:13 (fifteen years ago)
service chiefs dadt testimony not making me optimistic about repeal--3/4 dont favor repeal right now which should provide more than enuf political cov'g for assholes who wanna make hay about this
btw WHY IS NO ONE ASKING THE COAST GUARD my favorite branch of the military
― max, Friday, 3 December 2010 15:17 (fifteen years ago)
if Bam keeps longing so openly for 'bipartisanship,' an increasing number of ppl may figure out he and the GOP stand for many of the same things.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 15:36 (fifteen years ago)
Shh, they'll hear you!
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)
It seems like more and more prominent left-wing commentators are starting to call out Obama and team for their failure at negotiating with Republicans. My question then is, at what point will the president wake up and take notice of what seems completely self-evident to so many people on the left?
Are we to assume that he currently has no idea that he is failing so badly here? Or is he simply unwilling to even acknowledge the need to take a harder line against the GOP?
― Moodles, Friday, 3 December 2010 16:11 (fifteen years ago)
or that he doesn't want what his supporters want.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:13 (fifteen years ago)
He doesn't need them because he assumes they'll still vote for him in 2012.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:13 (fifteen years ago)
But this is starting to go beyond failure to support more liberal items. He's dropping the ball on things that have broad support across the political spectrum, like cancelling tax cuts for millionaires. These are some simple items that a little populist fury would help push forward in Congress.
― Moodles, Friday, 3 December 2010 16:17 (fifteen years ago)
a little populist fury is too busy w/ Wii and Facebook
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:19 (fifteen years ago)
xpost it's not even fully eliminating the tax cut for millionaires, either. They'll still get a tax cut on the first 250K of their income.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:20 (fifteen years ago)
True enough. Which should just make it an easier sell.
Xpost. By populist fury, I meant specifically from the president, but maybe he's got some serious Wii time going on too.
― Moodles, Friday, 3 December 2010 16:25 (fifteen years ago)
Krugz: It’s a (literally) cheap trick that only sounds impressive to people who don’t know anything about budget realities.
You say this like it's a bad thing!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
― Moodles, Friday, December 3, 2010 10:17 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark
havent we already argued about this? you cant win a game of chicken when one team has no problems colliding & letting the tax cuts lapse
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:52 (fifteen years ago)
― Euler, Friday, December 3, 2010 7:53 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
this is absurd.
have u looked at his senate voting record
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, December 3, 2010 10:19 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark
you dont keep up w/ the news -- wii fell off hard
That's how he characterizes himself! xp
― Euler, Friday, 3 December 2010 16:54 (fifteen years ago)
id like to see the context of that. is that how he characterizes his political positions as expressed, his positions behind the scenes, his goals as expressed, his actual goals, how he wants to be perceived vs. what he wants to accomplish, etc.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:56 (fifteen years ago)
don't have to look at the record - obama has said, at times, that he is essentially a Blue Dog, with reference to fiscally conservative Democrats. that means he has played us all for rubes! god knows how demoralized we'd be if he'd said those things about himself frequently
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 16:56 (fifteen years ago)
yes, he has projected a moderate image while signing more liberal legislation than clinton / the party has in 30+ years.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
there are tons of things to criticize him above but not seeming like a populist rabble-rouser isnt something im surprised he avoids! but pretending that says something about his political positions or beliefs is naive
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:02 (fifteen years ago)
sorry that 1st sentence was weirdly worded
there are tons of things to criticize him about but hes always avoided the image of a populist rabble-rouser so im not really surprised by his positioning. but pretending that says something about his political beliefs or goals is naive
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:03 (fifteen years ago)
ESSENTIALLY a blue dog is a egotistical contarian who naively thinks they can obstruct their way into being reelected. i dont think theres an actual political philosophy behind 'blue dogs' beyond that. and obama's not even in a position where he does those things. him saying hes 'like a blue dog' is so obviously his way of saying 'im just a regular bipartisan joe' while signing a huge expansion of govt control over childhood nutrition
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:05 (fifteen years ago)
things im mad at obama about: lack of concern about rendition/torture trials/civil liberties/expansion of federal powers/guantanamo/general spinelessness of AG. things im not mad about: him being forced to deal w/ 2 wars while obviously wanting to get out of them, inability to pass more liberal legislation because of blue dog obstruction / republican obstruction, GOP playing chicken w/ expiring tax law so they can accuse dems of raising taxes. the late-game hail mary of 'millionaire tax!!' would have been more effective if they were hammering it all summer, but we were holding onto the idea we could do it at $250000 instead. this is a lil last minute to start 'death tax' style memes
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:14 (fifteen years ago)
come on. dems could've voted to let the tax cuts expire two years ago. either the white house didn't see this coming (incompetence) or they don't want the tax cuts to expire and are just playing an optics game right now
― kamerad, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
Please let them all expire, the world won't end if they do.
― Moodles, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
with a still nascent recovery it's arguable that you don't want middle and low income people having less money to spend
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
i wish someone would ask mike pence/jim demint/paul ryan/john boehner etc about the relationship between the bush tax cuts they want to extend and the ongoing bush recession. it blows my mind that this never comes up
― kamerad, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)
― Moodles, Friday, December 3, 2010 11:24 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark
also, the world will end for dem elected officials for the foreseeable future
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
― kamerad, Friday, December 3, 2010 11:31 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
this would be a great angle imo
i cant comment on whether or not the d's ever thought this could pass earlier in the year considering we spent the summer wrangling over priority #1, health care
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
Thing is, if they try to pass an extension to the under $250K cut and it gets filibustered and then the cuts expire, smart leadership from the dems would hang the failure around the neck of the GOP. This is where the populist outrage would come in handy. Of course, the dems will screw this up.
― Moodles, Friday, 3 December 2010 17:38 (fifteen years ago)
im not sure the best marketing dudes in the world would be able to turn a dem-majority congress allowing across the board tax cits expiring, raising taxes on everyone in the middle of recession, as a GOP failure.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
oy
tax cuts to expire
and actually the tax cuts expiring for everybody could be framed as a necessary and noble sacrifice. but we're Americans, we want a pony.
also it's "class warfare" season
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:54 (fifteen years ago)
damn skippy I want a pony, it is my unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution
look it up
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:55 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.radiogodsforum.com/forum/uploads/1209002518/gallery_4786_40_34796.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)
IMO there could be an acceptable compromise on extending the current rates and brackets for all as long as the 0% on capital gains expires... If Obama wants to play bipartisanship this should be his line of attack. But then again he seems to be as into the financial industry as much as Bush was so I doubt he wants to do much to capital gains.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Friday, 3 December 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, raising capital gains tax might put a dent in those headline figures about record corporate profits - no dice, i think
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:03 (fifteen years ago)
and actually the tax cuts expiring for everybody could be framed as a necessary and noble sacrifice.
It's honestly the best solution but we have no collective sense of doing things for the common good in this country anymore. I blame cold war propaganda.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:03 (fifteen years ago)
Anybody read any skeptical articles recently on the Oregon terrorist guy? I've been moving over the past week so I've just been hearing bits and pieces. First thing I heard about him was that the federal gov't had been giving him thousands of dollars and they pretty much fabricated the whole thing. Then a few days later there was a pro-Security State piece on NPR giving examples of why he should be perceived as a threat. Among the examples were even though he was going to college, he didn't live in an on-campus dorm (gasp!) and something else, probably he wasn't on a meal plan or something.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:09 (fifteen years ago)
Also in that piece was an audio snippet of his mom or sister or something yelling "This is a framing! He is being framed! That's all it is!" in a really frightened tone of voice.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:10 (fifteen years ago)
i think its another in a string of examples of the FBI essentially planning terrorist attacks and then arresting the guy who they planned it with
― max, Friday, 3 December 2010 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
a few days later there was a pro-Security State piece on NPR giving examples of why he should be perceived as a threat. Among the examples were even though he was going to college, he didn't live in an on-campus dorm (gasp!) and something else, probably he wasn't on a meal plan or something.
jesus the flagship NPR news shows are just straight garbage when it comes to domestic issues aren't they
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:14 (fifteen years ago)
― max, Friday, December 3, 2010 1:12 PM (4 minutes ago)
yeah i don't have much of an opinion on this other than hopefully a fair trial will settle things - certainly seems kinda fishy
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)
i think its another in a string of examples of the FBI essentially planning terrorist attacks and then arresting the guy who they planned it with― max, Friday, December 3, 2010 12:12 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark
― max, Friday, December 3, 2010 12:12 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
its not really entrapment, IMO... it just seems like a waste of time. None of these guys so far have had any ability to carry out shit if they weren't being helped by undercover FBI.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:20 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i dont know about the legal status of what theyre doing but it seems part and parcel with the whole concept of security theater
― max, Friday, 3 December 2010 18:20 (fifteen years ago)
also helps stoke anti-muslim sentiment, good job fbi
― max, Friday, 3 December 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
^This. The day there was that arson fire at his mosque, it seemed that part of the story was reported far more than the Christmas bomb investigation.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
The wikileaks website has been blocked at library of congress for both employees and patrons. Department of Education has also blocked it. When I try to go there at work right now I get an error message. Is the site just down right now or is this 1984 shit?
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)
they're being kicked off everything basically. internet not so "free" after all lol
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:34 (fifteen years ago)
it's under dos attack iirc
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:35 (fifteen years ago)
I can't access wikileaks.org from the UK, so I don't think it's just a US blockage.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:35 (fifteen years ago)
What is the phone # for the Wikileaks BBS?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
I do think it's telling that it was the diplomatic cables leaks - and not the Iraq/Afghan war stuff - that elicited this response.
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
in what way? honest q
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:45 (fifteen years ago)
diplomatic cables reveal which leaders are actually lizards
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:52 (fifteen years ago)
It's much harder to use the public interest and suspicion of criminal activity to justify the leak of the cables. That said, these cables were available to thousands of federal employees so the idea that china etc. haven't seen these before is somewhat laughable.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 3 December 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)
gonna miss alan grayson and his poster sessionshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqQn1_x5C3I
― kamerad, Friday, 3 December 2010 19:06 (fifteen years ago)
boy, is he ugly in that clip.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:07 (fifteen years ago)
Please let them all expire
^^^ this
It was when the tax cuts were enacted that things started to go south on the budget. It was the refusal to repeal them in the face of two wars that accelerated the mess.
The political opportunity this presents to the Dems is that, as soon as the Bush cuts expire, they can make a new tax cut proposal that is weighted to the middle class and poor, then push it at the Republicans on a daily basis, letting the Republicans continue to be the obstructionists for the next two years, just to protect their millionaire buddies, while Obama gets the extra revenue to work with for as long as the Republicans insist on millionaire tax cuts or nothing.
Eventually this would wear down the public, who'd come to hate the GOP. At least the 60% of them whose heads aren't set in concrete.
― Aimless, Friday, 3 December 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
It's much harder to use the public interest and suspicion of criminal activity to justify the leak of the cables.
^^^yep. public apparently less sympathetic to leaking diplomatic cables than it is to leaking field intelligence reports re: war crimes.
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)
Aimless that is too complicated a scenario for the general public to grasp, unfortunately.
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)
even so I kinda agree that that would be a good approach. just on the basis of moral and fiscal defensibility.
public apparently less sympathetic to leaking diplomatic cables than it is to leaking field intelligence reports re: war crimes.
*shocker*
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)
lol yeah it isn't shocking at all, and speaks to Assange's rather crude/nonexistent judgment
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:13 (fifteen years ago)
max otm, the FBI is a bigger threat than some jerkwad Oregon teenager.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:21 (fifteen years ago)
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Friday, December 3, 2010 1:20 PM (1 hour ago)
well it's up to a court to decide - fbi's gotta prove beyond RD that dude was predisposed to committing criminal act before making contact with the fbi
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:28 (fifteen years ago)
i agree with aimless' post
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
imo letting them all (temporarily) expire should be something dems are willing to risk. fat chance tho
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
One fact not getting enough play: giving the middle class the tax cut will TRIPLE the deficit cuz, obviously, middle class people outnumber the rich.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
It sucks that the people who know how to win elections are exactly those people who are the most willing to pander, to lie, to evade responsibility, and to mislead the country at every chance they get. The fucking stupid thing is, it works.
― Aimless, Friday, 3 December 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
it's enough to make you a monarchist
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Friday, 3 December 2010 19:37 (fifteen years ago)
Or Canadian, or perhaps French. (But not French-Canadian!)
― Aimless, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)
The wikileaks website has been blocked at library of congress for both employees and patrons. Department of Education has also blocked it. When I try to go there at work right now I get an error message. Is the site just down right now or is this 1984 shit?― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Friday, December 3, 2010 12:30 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Friday, December 3, 2010 12:30 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 3 December 2010 20:12 (fifteen years ago)
Many of the documents are "classified" so even though wikileaks has made them public, federal government employees on their jobs are not supposed to be accessing classified docs that they do have authorization to look at.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:27 (fifteen years ago)
no wonder nothing in govt ever gets done
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Friday, 3 December 2010 20:27 (fifteen years ago)
On your own laptop outside of work is another story
― curmudgeon, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
A 11-7 majority on the panel backed the package to reduce projected deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade, but 14 votes were needed to send the plan to Congress. from NY Times
Good that the plan fell short. Simpson's plan would also have made the tax code less progressive and reduced rates for corporations and the rich.
Also, Obama just made a trip to Afghanistan that was not announced until after he was there.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
NY Times letter writer:
the original Bush tax cuts were passed under reconciliation rules, which required only a simple majority in the Senate. If those rules were good enough for the original tax cut, why aren’t they good enough for the extension?
Under reconciliation rules, it should be a simple matter for Democrats, with their current majorities in both the House and the Senate, to extend the tax cut for everyone earning less than $250,000 before they expire
― curmudgeon, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah this is what I thought too but everyone seems to be reporting it as needing 60 votes.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
doesn't it need 60 votes to be brought to a vote? because of cloture rules?
― kamerad, Friday, 3 December 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
yeah but if two bills pass shouldn't they be able to slip in the middle class tax cut extension when the two bills are reconciled?
I assume this comes down to the Parliamentarian?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 3 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
I guess?
Speaking of obstructing I was reading a right-wing W. Post blog columnist assert that after January the Republican House would adopt a version of the deficit commission's proposal, and that in the Senate some Dems would join Republicans in supporting it, while other Dems would try to block consideration
― curmudgeon, Friday, 3 December 2010 21:53 (fifteen years ago)
if i remember correctly, the Pay-Go rules had been phased out when EGTRRA (i.e., the Bush tax cuts) passed. dunno what effect (if any) that has on what the Dems could do (if they have a mind to REALLY do anything at all).
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 December 2010 22:00 (fifteen years ago)
the Dems need to recruit Dick Cheney to replace Biden, obv
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 December 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)
You guys are acting like Dems in Congress don't want tax cuts for the uber rich, ie themselves.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 3 December 2010 22:12 (fifteen years ago)
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, December 3, 2010 10:12 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
Bush's initial tax cut proposal couldn't pass, they had to pass a reduced one with 15 Democratic votes in the senate. 35 Democratic Senators voted against even the reduced package.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 3 December 2010 22:17 (fifteen years ago)
Barack Obama, Rockefeller Republican/Gabbnebocrat
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 December 2010 22:42 (fifteen years ago)
also, i don't think that the pertinent question is whether the Dems in Congress want the tax cuts for themselves. FWIW, a majority HAVE historically voted for tax increases (even otherwise-detestable folks like Lieberman).
the pertinent question is whether the people who the Dems in Congress want to shake down for campaign money want the tax cuts for themselves. Warren Buffett aside, and given the importance of Wall Street/hedge fund donors to the party's coffers, i suspect that the "liberalism" of may such folks ends when you start talking about raising THEIR taxes.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 December 2010 22:49 (fifteen years ago)
if two bills are cut down in a forest will anyone hear them
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:16 (fifteen years ago)
homeboy's talkin' some shit -- i'd like to cheer, but then he and Chucky Schumer were 2 of the co-sponsors of the $1M ceiling version of the tax bill.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
hey guys, pundits are genuflecting before the deficit commission you were pooh-poohing 2 weeks ago. Dems to follow. when ya gonna learn?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 4 December 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)
how many minutes before you drop the Aldrich reference?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:06 (fifteen years ago)
Alfred is of course right that the country cannot afford even the middle-class (i.e., $250K/yr or under) tax cuts. I just wanted to throw that out there to acknowledge the point.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Saturday, 4 December 2010 01:31 (fifteen years ago)
pundits are genuflecting before the deficit commission
David Brooks and the usual Washington Posties were doing so weeks ago
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 4 December 2010 05:54 (fifteen years ago)
Krugman getting harsh on Obama in the NY Times newsprint and blog
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/getting-obamas-drift/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1291470653-00LhOory3yFLi1iHVl4tBA
Meanwhile, there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. Just as a reminder, over the next 75 years the cost of making those tax cuts permanent would be roughly equal to the entire expected financial shortfall of Social Security. Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands — to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.
But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 4 December 2010 13:54 (fifteen years ago)
i mean we all know the content of this speech, but i fucking love Bernie Sanders' righteous anger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY
― hot weiners is the best and i want a hot weiner (the table is the table), Sunday, 5 December 2010 02:16 (fifteen years ago)
That's a good speech. These are the kinds of things the president should be saying, but of course he won't.
― Moodles, Sunday, 5 December 2010 02:31 (fifteen years ago)
The end of it is especially rad. I'm glad that at least one politician has the courage to say that Big Business and the Government are essentially the same at this point in history.
― hot weiners is the best and i want a hot weiner (the table is the table), Sunday, 5 December 2010 02:38 (fifteen years ago)
Hell yes. Amazing! I wish he was my senator.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 5 December 2010 04:05 (fifteen years ago)
yo that shit is hardbody
― k3vin k., Sunday, 5 December 2010 04:43 (fifteen years ago)
Oh boy, Congressional Republicans and administration officials said they were close to a deal to keep the Bush-era tax cuts temporarily
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
so excited
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
In meetings with administration officials after the Senate votes, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and many other House and Senate Democrats voiced deep unhappiness at the prospect of extending all the tax cuts and also expressed their belief that the White House did not appear to be getting enough for such a big concession, officials said.
what a surprise
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
Boehner profile in The New Yorker.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
"well, we lost the battle and had to extend the tax cuts for rich people, but at least in return we managed to secure an extension of unemployment benefits that, in addition to making 100000x more sense economically, would be morally wrong not to extend."
VICTORY
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
this sucks but what do you expect? theres no incentive at all for the GOP to make any kind of substantive compromise. if the tax cuts arent extended, and taxes go up across the board, guess whos gonna get blamed? and i dont just mean "blamed for the tax hikes"--i also mean for the drop in consumer spending, continually sluggish economy, etc. no amount of "optics" in the world can change the fact that people blame the president.
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)
But the President needed to be out front for 2 years spelling out what would be wrong with extending tax cuts for all, and he was not.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
He needed to have hired a better economic team than Geithner and Summers, and he needed to have pushed for a better stimulus plan, but he did not.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
The president would be better off explaining what can & can't be afforded given various levels of taxes. The GOP'll blow supply-side smoke but that voodoo only convinces the true believers. What people want is a free ride, & the president should make it clear what that ride is gonna look like.
which is not to say that I'm confident I'll like what "the people" "decide" since when I lived in FLA as a kid the old folks kept on voting down funding for schools in favor of padding their own pockets. My guess is that's the future of the USA i.e. abandon all hope ye who live here/there and/or get real paid, that'll work too.
― Euler, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
We've covered all this, and here we are. xpost
Plus side: it's 60 degrees here!
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Monday, December 6, 2010 12:36 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
maybe? i dont think it wouldve made a difference, though. public opinion is on his side. public knowledge isnt. the issue isnt that the president didnt explain the tax cut thing well enough, its that people have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantage
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:40 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Monday, December 6, 2010 12:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
like, duh
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
people have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantagepeople have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantagepeople have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantagepeople have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantagepeople have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantagepeople have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantagepeople have no clue how government works, and the republicans can use this to their advantage
― kanellos (gbx), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:41 (fifteen years ago)
i think if the president is going to spend years explaining something it needs to be how, exactly, congress works, and who is responsible for what. i wouldnt mind it if obama just taught a civics class for a couple years given that nothing else seems to be getting done.
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
it's not about expecting the GOP to compromise. everyone (except, apparently, for Obama and his inner circle) realized that wasn't going to happen a couple years ago.
it's about the dems inability to push a coherent and persuasive message to the public. something like "we are trying to pass a tax cut for 98% of Americans. in order to take a strong step toward reducing the deficit, we propose returning the tax rates for those making above $250K to 1990s levels. The Republicans are holding your middle class tax cut hostage in order to further enrich the richest people in America, and in the process are proposing to add $1 trillion to the deficit in comparison to our tax plan."
ok, uuugh, of course I'm not a speechwriter, but I have heard rumors that are apparently people in DC paid to come up with coherent messages that should be able to do a better job than me. Instead you have a fractured democratic party with one chunk sorta arguing for ending all the tax cuts, another for just the extension on those below $250K, and another supporting the extension of all the cuts. And, no surprise, the message that percolates through to the public ends up something like "uunnngghh....ich...ohhhh"
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
Honestly, I'm not sure I care about DADT at this point now that this tax fight looks over.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:44 (fifteen years ago)
people have no clue how government works
Democrats use this to their advantage too, just not as often. If you're in power and you don't TRY to change this, what's the point of it all?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:45 (fifteen years ago)
Instead you have a fractured democratic party with one chunk sorta arguing for ending all the tax cuts, another for just the extension on those below $250K, and another supporting the extension of all the cuts.
A problem from the beginning. Also: I'm sure more Dems want to extend the tax cuts than are willing to say so publicly. It's this knowledge that gives McConnell his energy.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:45 (fifteen years ago)
guys!! wikileaks just leaked an actual photo of the DNC's message strategy group (unknown til now)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:46 (fifteen years ago)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_d03nLsQJeE4/SPsqijcrncI/AAAAAAAAALo/R9rEteu9oVM/s400/cartoons-doodah-witchdoctor-booking.jpg
Their message:
http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP112/k1125498.jpg
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 17:46 (fifteen years ago)
what is a persuasive message going to do?? they have the public on their side! no amount of coherent message is going to overcome the fact that obama cant "afford" to let the tax cuts expire, economically/politically. the GOP is still prepared to let the tax cuts expire, and two years from now, theyre not the ones who are going to get punished.
i wont deny that a fractured democratic party is shooting itself in the foot, and that obama is clearly not a good negotiator, (and that probably a lot of democrats dont actually want to end the tax cuts) but in the end the dems had majorities in both the senate and congress to extend tax cuts to only ppl making less than 250k a year
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 17:48 (fifteen years ago)
they have public opinion on their side....so why can't they use that against republicans? why can't obama go on tv glenn beck style and point to a chalkboard showing that a plurality of americans want to do what he wants to do? and that if it doesn't happen, it will be completely the republicans' fault?
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)
Sometime in '81 Reagan spoke from the Oval Office to persuade Americans to support his tax cuts. He used graphs very effectively and ended with a request: call your local congressmen. The House switchboards had to shut down they took so many calls.
My point: if Obama's going to do this, he can't be "rational" (Reagan tax cuts were not). He has to use rhetoric and force. Name your enemies.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 18:01 (fifteen years ago)
Name your enemies.
for better or for worse it seems obama has staked his entire style on not doing this
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 6 December 2010 18:03 (fifteen years ago)
it's for worse
― pixel farmer, Monday, 6 December 2010 18:16 (fifteen years ago)
At least when they've voted for extending all the tax cuts, the left can take comfort in the idea that they really didn't want to vote that way.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 6 December 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
yes, this shit shd've been taken care of a year ago
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/12/the-real-tax-cut-sellout/
I wish critics did a better job of recognizing that the real sellout happened over two years ago when Obama surrendered to the conservative framing that taxes are evil and public services are never worth paying for.
The progressive goal needs to be (a) adequate revenue, (b) more progressivity, and (c) economic efficiency. The President’s initial proposal achieved (b) but didn’t move the ball forward on (c), didn’t get us close to where we needed to be on (a) and locked us into a rhetoric frame that made (a) and (c) difficult to accomplish. It was, in other words, a bit of a mess adopted for political reasons. And now the Democratic leadership can’t even make the politics work.
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Monday, 6 December 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)
just amother 60 years of this and libs will want to start an actual progressive party.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 18:56 (fifteen years ago)
Jeezus, how about we all send links to that Bernie Sanders speech to Obama?
― Aimless, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:01 (fifteen years ago)
Sully, addled:
So let's get this straight: at a moment when most acknowledge a fiscal crisis that requires sacrifice on both sides, such sacrifice means the GOP gets its budget-busting non-sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts, and the Dems get to extend unemployment insurance. The former is far more damaging than the latter to fiscal sanity, but both add to spending after an election in which the public allegedly stood up as one to demand fiscal restraint.
Here's why it makes sense for Obama. It certainly helps goose the economy for the next two years, which has got to help him win re-election; if done quickly, it can create room for the new START and repeal of DADT in this Congress; in the next Congress, Obama can focus on long-term debt reduction in the State of the Union, without being mau-maued on tax hikes.
I don't see this as surrender. I see this as Obama's cold-blooded pragmatism. Why is this still news?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:07 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Monday, December 6, 2010 11:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
because people want to watch 'dancing with the stars'
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
solution: Michelle Obama should do Dancing With The Stars
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)
something like "we are trying to pass a tax cut for 98% of Americans. in order to take a strong step toward reducing the deficit, we propose returning the tax rates for those making above $250K to 1990s levels. The Republicans are holding your middle class tax cut hostage in order to further enrich the richest people in America, and in the process are proposing to add $1 trillion to the deficit in comparison to our tax plan."
this is coherent -- problem: 9 out of 10 ppl in america couldn't tell you what "deficit" means
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)
as much as i agree theoretically w/ both kevin & zs, obama would have better luck concocting a way to make it seem like the GOP tax plan will significantly hurt our ability to eat all the cheese we want
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/can_the_white_house_win_in_201.html
ezra klein says that this is all a play for 2012 -- dems are trying to push as much money as possible into the economy in the hope that they'll be able to reap the benefits of an uptick in jobs come 2012 -- dem strategists say that they won't be able to win that argument anyway
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:14 (fifteen years ago)
jesus christ I know Klein has copy to generate every hour or so, but can he and his ilk please stop talking about 2012?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:17 (fifteen years ago)
x-post to the Sully opinion saying the compromise is not surrender
He gave up something he campaigned on, in order to simply again get something that the Congress had previously given in the past without such deals(extending unemployment) while increasing the deficit and giving the Republicans a victory (tax cuts for the rich are free and don't have to be paid for). How is that not surrender? And putting extra spending money in the pockets of the unemployed is helpful, but it's not like it's gonna do that much.
Kyl is still talking about blocking START. I thought Obama was gonna try to get this into "the compromise."
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)
gabbnebism is alive and well and living in Washington, D.C.
― Aimless, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, December 6, 2010 12:03 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― pixel farmer, Monday, December 6, 2010 12:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
worked really well for clinton
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)
Clinton did it all the time post'95!
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:22 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Monday, December 6, 2010 1:18 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yes thats right folks -- we didnt get everything we wanted. welcome to politics, again
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, December 6, 2010 1:22 PM (32 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yes and think of all the legislation it helped him pass!
the Oklahoma City speech, the 'showdown' over shutting down the gov't, impeachment....
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)
Deej Emmanuel confuses "legislation" with "points on the board."
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:24 (fifteen years ago)
we didnt get everything we wanted. welcome to politics, again
Tell me agin. What have the republicans wanted, aside from SS privatization, that they haven't been getting?
― Aimless, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)
well, they wanted an old white man to be President
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:26 (fifteen years ago)
Deej, as numerous folks across the moderate to left spectrum (and according to today's NY Times, Pelosi and numerous others in the House) have been arguing, Obama does not play poker or politics well and gives in without pushing for a better deal. So fine, if you want to say this is just politics and its all Obama could have done, well you're entitled to your view, but I think the others here make more sense.
Also, economists have been saying for months that the rich are not going to spend this money (they don't need to) and now Ezra Klein is saying the rich are gonna spend this money and that's gonna help. Huh.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)
i literally cannot tell if deej is being sarcastic
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)
It is politics. The corporatist politics of Obama and most Democrat pols.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:30 (fifteen years ago)
i havent read the ezra post but assume he's talking about all vs nothing tax increases. which of course were the only options from the start
xp curmudgeon
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
also love how every journalist is describing this as a "compromise". what are we getting, exactly?
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 19:32 (fifteen years ago)
besides another four years of obama, i guess. woohoo
Hand-wringing from liberals.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)
most MSM outlets do not permit use of "Democrats get assraped with a chainsaw"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)
well that's gonna be a given xp
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Monday, December 6, 2010 1:32 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark
well the extension of unemployment benefits
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
lol morbs
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 19:35 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Monday, December 6, 2010 1:32 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
are you longing for the reign of pres mitt romney?
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:35 (fifteen years ago)
keep repeating variations of that for 50 years, J0rd, as the seawaters rise.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)
i'm moving back to miami, so by that logic i'll drown in about 10
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)
Hasn't Obama been governing like Romney anyway? We even got his health care plan!
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:38 (fifteen years ago)
boggles my mind that this was even considered "up for negotiation".
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:34 PM (46 seconds ago)
yeah the frustrating part is that we had to lose on taxes for this to even be on the table
xp exactly
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)
I dunno, lots of people think about economically morally. They say, "why are we paying people who don't have jobs? I wish I could get that kinda deal!" & then you reply like a good technocrat "well, actually it's good for the economy" & they say "... we're paying people who don't have jobs!".
― Euler, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:42 (fifteen years ago)
think about *economics* morally
― Euler, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)
dear thread denizens:
most of our countrymen are functionally retarded
consider all political fights against this backdrop
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:44 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Monday, December 6, 2010 1:40 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
i'm not saying that it's right! but it's a factual part of the 'compromise'
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:45 (fifteen years ago)
also mindboggling is that the GOP argument against the unemployement benefits was that the dems didn't identify a way to fund the $12.5 billion that it would cost to extend them (even though two reports just came out that said that "ending federal extensions would drain the economy of $80 billion of purchasing power" and "cost 2 million jobs"), while at the same time the GOP is holding the wellbeing of the worst-off Americans hostage so that they could give a tax break to the richest Americans that would cost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, without identifying a way to fund it.
puke.jpg
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:47 (fifteen years ago)
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Monday, December 6, 2010 12:42 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^^i totally agree w/ this, btw
i entirely disagree w/ the idea that once this was set in stone, O could have negotiated/speechified his way out of it. its a win-win situation for R's here & pretending that this was a game of chicken we could win is totally wrong
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:50 (fifteen years ago)
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, December 6, 2010 1:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
i think this can be fundamentally broken down to the fact that most americans have disdain for people below them economically while having reverence for those above them -- i think this is something that has become ingrained over the past 30 years or so & i don't think there's a simple solution for how democrats can convince people otherwise (political communication is not a one way street) -- how in the span of a few weeks or months do you rid people of the strawman of a lazy minority stealing their money from them?
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:52 (fifteen years ago)
i feel for all the people shitting on obama in this thread but i hope theyre holding the gop and our broken system equally culpable
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:52 (fifteen years ago)
pretending that this was a game of chicken we could win is totally wrong
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, December 6, 2010 1:50 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
unfortunately i agree w/ this
nah
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:53 (fifteen years ago)
Obama won't even do that though
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 19:56 (fifteen years ago)
obama is the source of all these problems
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 19:58 (fifteen years ago)
it is kind of Obama's fault that McCain is being as much of an intractable douchebag as he is, tho
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:04 (fifteen years ago)
since we're not gonna change the fucking source, Obama is theoretically supposed to ameliorate its murderous effect. He's not, and not even trying in a tertiary way. So fuck him.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)
what I'm saying is you people who are going to support Dems when they fuck up worse than this are the crucial, difference-making problem.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:06 (fifteen years ago)
i disagree that you can make that much of a difference by worrying about who you are dropping votes for instead of doing the actual work of changing things. complaining about obama is not heroic or game-changing, whether or not youre right, & recognizing that mainstream politicians are going to be straightjacketed by the broken system / a country of idiots doesnt change that
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:09 (fifteen years ago)
i had no idea you thought that
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 20:11 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:06 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
i understand this position but i think mathematically it's just not true.
i really do think that people 'like us' just have to grit our teeth and vote for democrats and hope they are collectively not awful or stupid or get their shit took.
i could go through the logic again but that's the size of it.
― goole, Monday, 6 December 2010 20:14 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:06 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark
umm yeah this is nonsense
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:16 (fifteen years ago)
Morbs's position only makes sense if you disagree with Democrats as strenuously as you disagree with Republicans. I am not opposed to third-party voting and have done so several times (including a totally honest, unironic write-in vote for my father for President in 1992), but by and large most Democrat candidates on the ballot in my area vote the way I want them to, so I have no problem voting for them.
On a national level I would like to kick the Democratic Party in the taint, tho.
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:17 (fifteen years ago)
No one here who says Obama needs to show some backbone and some negotiating skills, is excusing the Republicans or pretending they're not the problem or that the system is not broken.
"Game-changing" would have been for Obama to have listened to his own pre-election speeches against deregulation and Republican economic policies, and then hired economists who reflected those speeches rather than the wall street dems he hired. Game-changing would have been for Obama to have been out there giving speeches a summer ago when the tea party knuckleheads were spreading nonsense about health insurance.
And yes, I will still vote for Obama only because his centrist Supreme Court selections are better than what the Republicans would offer.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 20:18 (fifteen years ago)
saying they're 'centrist,' even though they vote how you want by and large -- kind of a joke imo
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:22 (fifteen years ago)
I think if the Democratic Party stopped alternating between treating the American public like a gamey piece of shit and the aloof popular girl everyone in high school wants to be and/or get with, it would be a Good Thing.
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:24 (fifteen years ago)
vote for democrats and hope they are collectively not awful or stupid or get their shit took.
This "hope" is not optimism, it is fantasy.
they vote how you want by and large
Vote the way they want on legislation they want to vote on, ie, no campaign finance reform ever again. You're right, they're not "centrist" -- they're status-quo plutocrats.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
x-post to Deej
"by and large"
Kagan's record on executive power and civil liberties is centrist, and numerous legal scholars and others made the case that Obama should have chosen 7th Circ. Judge Wood who is more liberal. He interviewed Wood but did not select her.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 December 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
lol what do you have against fantasies... glass houses, etc
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:30 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Monday, December 6, 2010 2:28 PM (51 seconds ago) Bookmark
let's have this argument again
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:30 (fifteen years ago)
so when you guys talk about 'the democratic party' you actually mean specific elements w/in it ... like, reid but not pelosi, rahm but not dean, right?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:32 (fifteen years ago)
as fun as it is to be reductive & blame obama & 'the democrats' for everything
i mean, if pelosi took the morbs path where would we be now
in drag
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:33 (fifteen years ago)
agreed but at the very least it's been months since we've argued about kagan as opposed to, what, a week since we argued over whether or not the democratic party ruled xps j
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 20:34 (fifteen years ago)
well of the ones you listed, I mean Reid, Rahm AND Dean
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:34 (fifteen years ago)
Jon Voight on your favorite former Alaska governor:
Some people have said that they were upset with her for leaving the governorship when she did. I disagree with those people. I think she saved Alaska with that move.
Sadly, he doesn't mean it the same way the rest of the world would take it.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 December 2010 20:35 (fifteen years ago)
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:34 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
rahm & dean had oppositional strategies as far as the '08 election ... which is imo the basis of what we argue were where the problems started. rahm wanted to run blue dogs in conservative districts, dean wanted to build a 50-state progressive strategy
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:38 (fifteen years ago)
iirc
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
when we guys talk about 'the democratic party' we actually mean the Dems whose views prevail
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
^^^meaningful statement
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)
but both add to spending after an election in which the public allegedly stood up as one to demand fiscal restraint.
i find the baffling btw. where is the conservative/teaparty outrage about govt spending?!?! please point it out if there is any.
― Moreno, Monday, 6 December 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i just wrote that to make myself sick. it worked
― Moreno, Monday, 6 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
its not exactly inconsistent, that's money that ppl 'earn' so its more like the govt isnt getting it in the first place, they're not paying tax breaks
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:06 (fifteen years ago)
which is why dems see it as a victory that repubs agreed to let them spend money on the loser unemployed
― Moreno, Monday, 6 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:38 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^^^ you read my mind
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
i think you could make an argument that it would be better to have a republican like romney governing like obama than a democrat (like obama) governing like obama, but of course no republican would actually do a lot of the things that obama has done, so that point is moot
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:15 (fifteen years ago)
tbh, if Romney would also have put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court, I wouldn't have an issue with the idea of his presidency
I mean, he governed my state and we didn't all die
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
(not that I voted for him, but still)
is this some of that soft bigotry of low expectations stuff
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
Romney would probably sell his own mother to preserve the sheen on his hair.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
yeah quite frankly, my elected officials making decisions that lead to me not dying is actually pretty high on my list of expectations
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:42 (fifteen years ago)
"romney" from when he was governor of MA is not like apocalyptic. "romney" right now in full pandering mode is scary, esp. on foreign policy issues.
― max, Monday, 6 December 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
well yes, which is but one reason why I still wouldn't vote for him
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)
whatever Romney may or may not be when left to his own devices, he'd HAVE to move far right to win the GOP nomination. his brand of republicanism may play in MA or elsewhere in the NE -- but not among the Teabagger set. it's a similar reason why i'm not too concerned with Chris Christie (i.e, Giuliani v. 2.0, only dumber fatter and nastier) going to the White House.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:45 (fifteen years ago)
right -- and all of these things invalidate alfred's point (however tossed off/joking it might have been)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, it was tossed-off, but, really: Obama's eighteen months have, tonally at least, been like the first term blues of a centrist governor.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:52 (fifteen years ago)
eh fuck it -- time to go home
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 21:57 (fifteen years ago)
The idea that Obama should just "go on TV" and somehow be so persuasive and wonderful that the Republicans will stop filibustering shit is really naive. This is a Hollywood fantasy version of politics.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
No one said he would persuade Republicans.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:07 (fifteen years ago)
Then what's the point?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:08 (fifteen years ago)
To make us feel better about him, and maybe win the election in 2012?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:09 (fifteen years ago)
That's all well and good, and he should do it, but it's not going to get DADT repealed.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)
he's going to kick ass in 2012 mark my words
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)
good messaging is like box-checking imo. it may not have any 'real' effect, but at least your same-side political observers don't say 'damn, shitty messaging here'.
there's a certain kind of political animal beltway type that will say that anyway, but, like, make sure you leave that job mostly to your enemies. it seems pretty elementary to me.
but, you know, it's a little easier to sound like you are doing the right thing, if you are doing the right thing, and believe it.
― goole, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)
btw obama is going on TV tonight
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:13 (fifteen years ago)
ratings gold!
― goole, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:13 (fifteen years ago)
Are you ready for some FOOTTTBALLLL
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:18 (fifteen years ago)
prob. should open speech that way
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:19 (fifteen years ago)
he should have two flatscreens showing the football game flanking him
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:19 (fifteen years ago)
maybe do the speech from a tailgate party
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 6 December 2010 23:21 (fifteen years ago)
should've had rex ryan record the speech before the game
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:22 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.discoverynews.org/obama-football-face.jpg
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:23 (fifteen years ago)
now, imagine that football was replaced with deej's head
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:26 (fifteen years ago)
which one?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)
xD
― k3vin k., Monday, 6 December 2010 23:46 (fifteen years ago)
aaaand here it is
estate tax thing is interesting but surely that's just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other lost revenue at the top end of the income scale
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
Jake Tapper just reported the news on ABC News. Apparently the House Dems are, erm, caviling.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 December 2010 23:56 (fifteen years ago)
Guess this is the left's equivalent of Reagan raises taxes on gas and cigarettes.
Looks like Obama's trying to do some triangulation with his statements in that CNN article, but failing pretty hard. Coming across as insincere, IMO and if Obama loses his sense of sincerity he's lost everything.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:32 (fifteen years ago)
reading the details...obama ended up giving up even more, in addition to the extension of all bush tax cuts?
The deal also includes reinstating the currently expired estate tax in a way proposed by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — 35 percent with a $5 million exemption (which means that $5 million can be passed on tax free). President Obama had proposed permanently setting the estate tax at the 2009 level of 45 percent with a $3.5 million exemption. Under current law, the estate tax comes back next year at a 55 percent rate with a $1 million exemption.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:35 (fifteen years ago)
can someone tell me why i'm supposed to give a shit about the estate tax? just cuz it's an easy way for the govt to get large sums of money?
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:36 (fifteen years ago)
just now getting to the other paragraph worth of details on the estate tax:
But the most pernicious piece of this deal is the estate tax cut. It will amount to another $7 billion in tax breaks in 2011 that benefit no one but the ultra-wealthy. Under Obama’s plan, just 0.25 percent of estates in the country would conceivably have to pay the estate tax, but Lincoln and Kyl proposed spending billions to lop another 0.11 percent off of that.
there is no godproof
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)
yeah ugh fuck all this nonsense
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:39 (fifteen years ago)
Now, it was a few years ago I know, but I don't remember Obama running on the platforms of promoting social stratification and the eradication of the middle class. Maybe Barry's a secret plutocrat after all.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:41 (fifteen years ago)
next up: social security privitization?!?
complete douche.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:41 (fifteen years ago)
estate tax is terrible
13-month extension of unemployment insurance is better than extended
the rest is ideologically shitty but fingers crossed maybe itll get the economy going and find some jobs for people? but oh who am i kidding
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:42 (fifteen years ago)
*better than expected
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:43 (fifteen years ago)
Obama acknowledged growing pressure from fiscally conservative Republicans, who believe the tax cut extension adds to the federal deficit
wtf? who are these people. I have literally not heard a single congressional Republican say anything about this that didn't amount to "tax cuts for billionaires or death"
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:43 (fifteen years ago)
more nails in the coffin of the middle class -- thank you, Barry and Timmy. maybe you will get to retain SOME of that hedge fund money that filled yer coffers 2 years ago.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
also lol at "believe" IT FUCKING DOES DO THE MATH YOU IDJITS
― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
There is no call for faith-based economic policy, and I'd rather not have that, sil vous plait.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)
the hated TPM points to another awful mistake:
I'd figured that the "deal" over taxes was going to have permanent extensions on your first $250,000 of taxable income and temporary extensions for those of you lucky enough to have income over that. Having the upper income tax cuts get re-litigated in 2012 is good politics for the Democrats if you get 'decoupling' like that -- having the debate solely on taxable income over $250,000. But apparently they're temporary for everyone. Which means you're going to have this exact same debate in 2012. Which, for those of you following at home, is not a very good thing.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)
Don't worry: when Obama gets reelected he'll take care of it.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)
HA..?
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:51 (fifteen years ago)
If John Boehner runs for president, we're fucked. Fuck fuck fuckity fucked. Because he'll win.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:52 (fifteen years ago)
If this economy doesn't turn around before about March of 2012, and in a big way, Obama is out no matter who they run, unless it's Palin or some retarded shit. I don't think they're that dumb. And I do think that Obama is a one-term President.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:57 (fifteen years ago)
Boehner wouldn't be the worst republican president, just the smarmiest. Honestly he seems far more moderate than any of the other potential front-runners.
The true nightmare would be Eric Cantor: POTUS.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:58 (fifteen years ago)
IF curious about how our friends at NRO World responded, the first bullet point in this post should tell you what you need to know.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:00 (fifteen years ago)
xpost i guess i'll save the bulk of my end of the world shit for another thread, but any significant global economic rebound is going to drive up oil demand/prices back up to 2006-2008 levels, ie, back when oil was nearing $150 a barrel and gas prices were above $4.
"oops, we forgot to create a coherent energy policy during the last 30 years, sorry!"
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:01 (fifteen years ago)
xxp I don't care about smarmy, I care about economic policy, and Boehner has it in his very heard head that cutting taxes for the rich and the richest industries creates jobs and drives innovation, and under President Boehner, we're in for at least 4 years of "fuck 'em if they don't want us to use oil." I believe that he believes this. And it will be the doom of this economy.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
xp OTMFM!
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:01 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
Don't worry, there's tar sands!
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:09 (fifteen years ago)
There are, actually. They're all over the beaches of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:13 (fifteen years ago)
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Monday, December 6, 2010 7:49 PM (21 minutes ago)
one thing i firmly agree with - and that hasn't been said enough - is that it's laughable imo to think that somehow dems can turn this into some kind of election issue in 2012. as if this debate is going to get any easier, or as if republicans will somehow agree that raising taxes is ok even after recovery has really begun. the time to go after the 250+ tax cuts was now - too late.
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
didnt read wherever that's from other than the excerpt but i disagree with the implication that the "middle class" cuts should have been made permanent, obv. i don't know where the writer got the idea that that was going to happen. maybe i missed that
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:23 (fifteen years ago)
sorry, here's the link
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:25 (fifteen years ago)
the middle class tax cut comes from Barry's campaign promise.
and can anyone sum up why Ezra Klein is beating his meat over this? he's normally so sensible, so does he have a sensible rationale or has he on some supply-side shit?!?
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:27 (fifteen years ago)
ezra is pretty ok but he's kind of an obama stan. he's def trying pretty hard to see the glass half-full here. (which doesn't mean that anything he's said today is wrong, per se)
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:31 (fifteen years ago)
i mean yall ARE being hella dramatic about this but thats the tone around here ive noticed
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:32 (fifteen years ago)
i just skimmed klein's article and he made the (correct) points that extended unemployment benefits, the payroll employment tax cut, and the extension of certain other tax cuts are stimulatory. and that this is about as stimulatory as we're going to get w/ the current political alignment (since aggressive fiscal stimulus/spending is out).
it makes SOME sense -- but i'd defer to economists on how stimulatory this tax bill will really be.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:38 (fifteen years ago)
the time to go after the 250+ tax cuts was now - too late.
― k3vin k., Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:21 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
Republicans were fine with letting all the tax cuts expire and reaping the political capital that comes from saying "Obama raised everyone's taxes." How were the dems supposed to make them change this posture?
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:40 (fifteen years ago)
i see ezra less as an analyst and more as someone that just clarifies shit
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
basically the most justifiable tax in the world. doesn't fuck with economic activity and takes money away from people who didn't do anything except get born. should be 100%.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
Dems basically relying on the adage, "Umemployed people pump lots of money into the economy by eating McDonald's."
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:49 (fifteen years ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, December 6, 2010 8:40 PM (7 minutes ago)
i'm not going to bother responding to you and rehashing the same things several people have said in this thread already. please read things
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:49 (fifteen years ago)
lol iatee totally otm
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:50 (fifteen years ago)
what's the estimated difference in money lost b/w 35% at $5m and 45% at $2.5m? it doesn't seem to me like it would be a significant amount of money annually at all.
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:53 (fifteen years ago)
Matt, with all due respect, you tend to wade into these discussions without reading the admittedly exhaustive series of preceding posts.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:53 (fifteen years ago)
7 billion dollars in 2011 (and presumably in subsequent years), according to the little think progress article i excerpted above.
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:56 (fifteen years ago)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, December 6, 2010 8:53 PM (3 minutes ago)
idk let's pretend there were 10,000 people who died who left estates of 5 million. under the proposed rules, the govt would get no money, but going by lincoln's proposal they'd get 2.5m x 0.35 x 10000 = 8.75 billion? i have no idea how many old rich people die
xp lol there you go
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:02 (fifteen years ago)
actually my prediction was kind of remarkably close considering i completely made that shit up
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:03 (fifteen years ago)
^ title for next us politics thread
― http://i54.tinypic.com/2vt2utg.gif (markers), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:05 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:53 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark
nah I read them all.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:17 (fifteen years ago)
the only suggestions I saw were Obama going on TV and "twisting arms" in negotiations. Both of which would have had no effect on the lockstep Republicans in the Senate.
but the "time was now" for those tax cuts to expire. I don't get it. They held the votes, it couldn't pass, game over.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
i for one welcome the approaching nightmare years. i know, i'm a reactionary goon, but i'm hoping that maybe there'll be some sort of astounding uptick of actual protest by people who aren't lolteapartiers?
― hot weiners is the best and i want a hot weiner (the table is the table), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
alright then matt with all due respect even after reading all the posts you're a few argument cycles behind everyone else
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:29 (fifteen years ago)
FWIW, i used to do trusts & estates legal work -- and perhaps will do so in the very near future. so the status of the federal estate/gift tax regime is potentially VERY relevant to me, which is why i get wonky/tetchy about the subject.
besides that, and putting aside the amount of money that federal death wealth transfer taxes bring into the federal fisc (which ISN'T that much, and wasn't that much even before Bush), there are solid political/philosophical reasons to support it (e.g., it is arguably more fair than income tax because it really taxes property that passes by accident of birth instead "earned" through work or even investment, it mitigates concentrations of wealth, it frees up wealth that would otherwise be wasted or just squirreled away).
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 02:41 (fifteen years ago)
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:32 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
dont we have enough talking heads saying inane shit like this on tv
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 03:58 (fifteen years ago)
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:52 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:57 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
was there a race to see who can say the dumbest shit while i was away lol
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:01 (fifteen years ago)
"well you werent here" ho ho ho zing pre empted
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:06 (fifteen years ago)
I'm a little confused about the estate tax. Isn't setting up a trust with your intended beneficiaries a workaround for that?
I was present at a meeting with my mom's lawyer in which he told her that the year 2010 was a good year to die, because that was (is?) an estate taxless year.
― Virginia Plain, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:14 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, December 6, 2010 7:53 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
um when did you guys actually address how this was supposed to pass anyway? matt is otm, when i brought this shit up you guys had zero answers
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:14 (fifteen years ago)
obama was supposed to preempt "two and a half" men
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:16 (fifteen years ago)
men"
iirc a blackboard was involved
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:17 (fifteen years ago)
lol you otmed matt armstrong
deej we're arguing on completely different planes - in your zero-risk zero-reward world, dems either have the votes or they don't, there's absolutely no way to use public opinion to your advantage so why even consider it, and letting the tax cuts expire on everyone is not even something that is on the table. not everyone shares your defeatist attitute
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:19 (fifteen years ago)
i agree w/ you partly, but what's the solution
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:20 (fifteen years ago)
what i have said is democrats should be willing to risk letting all of the taxes expire and use the public - which backs them on this issue - to their advantage to demonize republicans for holding "middle class" tax cuts hostage. of course this introduces a bit of risk - it would require democrats to push a coherent and forceful message, something no one is sure they're able to do. it's not the absolute most expedient strategy, but i think it's worth trying. so when matt armstrong cluelessly c&p'ed someone's post asking how obama was supposed to "go on tv" and get republican votes, no one answered him because no one said that was what would happen
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:25 (fifteen years ago)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Monday, December 6, 2010 11:20 PM (4 minutes ago)
well see my last post but again deej and i have different definition of "solution" - deej's most important goal is to ensure obama gets re-elected in 2 years. a "solution" is not on the table for him if it involves political risk of any kind
i was jk about the blackboard obv but still think it would be hilar
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:31 (fifteen years ago)
i'm being a bit reductive obviously but i think you can grasp my point
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:33 (fifteen years ago)
which is that blackboards = making a comeback in the big 1 1
they pushed a pretty coherent and forceful message 5 years ago when Dubya was talking about privitizing SS. this was allegedly evidence that the Dems were going to flex their balls and the Lieberdouche even got bitch-slapped when he sent up a trial balloon about compromising on the issue.
this was before, of course, a certain ambitious freshly-minted started pushing the "SS is going broke" meme whilst on the Presidential campaign trail.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:39 (fifteen years ago)
a certain ambitious freshly-minted Senator i meant to say
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:40 (fifteen years ago)
xpost to k3vin
it's devo. pretty soon we'll be drawing patterns in the sand with sticks, and then near the end we'll just be grunting at each other, fucking and gnawing at uncooked meat
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:50 (fifteen years ago)
hey dude, losing in 2012 would be a big deal. sorry i disagree with your idealolism about how 'being forceful' will overcome the fact that a giant tax hike on middle classes in the middle of the recession happens on a dem watch -- but its the other guy's fault!!
people are stupid, dudes. no one is going to buy that.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:51 (fifteen years ago)
as someone who wasnt 4 years old when the gore-bush elections were going on & all these ppl arguing the same points as you, k3v, were telling us how 'gore & bush are like, basically the same, maaaan,' then we got a decade of gwb & didnt things turn out so great??? i mean maybe you want to play historical what-if w/ me but whatever his issues gore wasnt about to invade iraq
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:52 (fifteen years ago)
if you want to 'make a difference' stop playing backseat driver to some fucking politicians & actually make arguments about the issues you care about -- politicians are, by nature, going to be political! they want to be elected! you dont change shit by yelling at them like theyre stupid, you make it so conditions force them to vote the way you want them to.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:54 (fifteen years ago)
im all for voting for more liberal politicians locally, fwiw.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 04:57 (fifteen years ago)
ethan linked to this on fbook, good posthttp://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/12/be-citizen-not-subject.html
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:20 (fifteen years ago)
This was unnecessary, especially seeing as how we agree on, like, everything.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:26 (fifteen years ago)
eh i just thought it was random that you were worried about john boehner!!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:30 (fifteen years ago)
John Boehner is the most up-front face of an ideology that is insidious. He's "salt of the earth" in a way that many people will interpret as being Reagan-esque, and he weeps like Glenn Beck, and he hates taxes in that signature totally unreasonable Republican way. There are times when he's damn near likable. The dude is dangerous.
― I am Woolen Man. The scarf and I are one. (kenan), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:36 (fifteen years ago)
so when matt armstrong cluelessly c&p'ed someone's post asking how obama was supposed to "go on tv" and get republican votes, no one answered him because no one said that was what would happen
― k3vin k., Tuesday, December 7, 2010 4:25 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark
So what exactly is the point of him "going on TV" every night and lecturing the MSNBC and CSPAN audiences if it doesn't lead to Republicans coming over and passing the legislation he wants?
The only positive thing it could possibly do is help Democratic election chances in 2012 (and this seems unlikely, as "Obama raises taxes" is a much more enduring message than "well we raised taxes on everyone, but we only wanted to raise them on the rich and the Republicans wouldn't let us"). And every time someone (in today's case, deej) brings up Democratic election chances in 2012 as a reason to support various moves of Obama and the Dems, you criticize them for being smallminded and naive (or in today's case, not pursuing the "solution").
So what is it exactly that you're hoping for from these Obama TV speeches?
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:43 (fifteen years ago)
john boehner has dead eyes. he's a party hack. he's not going to come within spitting distance of the presidency.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 10:45 (fifteen years ago)
good article linked upthread but this suggested remedy:
You can engage. You can get your friends who chose not to vote in 2010 to return to the polling place in 2012. You can start volunteering for a candidate; you can give volunteer time or (if you have it) money to a primary challenger you think makes sense
seems like small beer. really "engaging" would mean: not delegating everything to politicians, but working towards things yourself in concert with others (via community orgs, NGOs, reading clubs, volunteer assocs). a thriving community of amateur problem-solvers will have more of an influence on politicians (if that's your goal) than letters to the editor or campaign contributions or phone banking!!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 12:16 (fifteen years ago)
Digby:
And by the way, Ezra and others continue to misunderstand what the Republicans were really after here. As I've said ad nauseum they want the tax cuts to be temporary because they want to have this fight over tax cuts to continue into the presidential campaign. If the President agreed to extend the tax cuts permanently, the issue would be off the table and that's not to their advantage. (Believe me, the business community is not really *uncertain* about anything at this point.)
Yes, it's better that they didn't extend them permanently, but are liberals looking forward to this argument two years from now? (And will there ever be any circumstances that will make it easier for them to expire than there were in the spring of 2009?) It's a missed opportunity, and one which I suspect was always planned to miss. The Bushies knew what they were doing when they rigged this one and it would have taken a Democratic party and a president much more brave and populist than the ones we have to undo it.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 13:24 (fifteen years ago)
seems like small beer. really "engaging" would mean: not delegating everything to politicians, but working towards things yourself in concert with others (via community orgs, NGOs, reading clubs, volunteer assocs). a thriving community of amateur problem-solvers will have more of an influence on politicians (if that's your goal) than letters to the editor or campaign contributions or phone banking!!― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 07:16 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 07:16 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Agreed, where is the US equivalent of UK uncut shutting down exxon stations?
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 13:34 (fifteen years ago)
We have rather large facebook groups
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 13:51 (fifteen years ago)
^^ next politics thread title.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 13:53 (fifteen years ago)
hey dude, losing in 2012 would be a big deal
I agree with you on that but I am not sure how aggravating your base time and time again and agreeing to "compromises" on rich people tax cuts like this one, help in 2012. Yes I understand the risk that would have been involved in playing hardball, but agreeing to weak deals doesn't exactly gain support among voters. I don't get the Obama assumption that he is going be seen as bipartisan here and thus win over the "independent" voters.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 15:53 (fifteen years ago)
Oh fuck off:
"We wanted a fight, the House didn't throw a punch," a senior White House official tells ABC News, pointing out that for months before the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama was making the case against the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. "The House wouldn't vote before the Senate, and the Senate was afraid they'd lose a vote on it."
"It was like the Jets versus Sharks except there weren't any Jets," the official said. "Senator Schumer says he wants a fight? He couldn't hold his caucus together."
Someone tell these geniuses that the White House could have said it would veto any compromises. Much easier for Pelosi and Reid to hold their respective caucuses together.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 15:56 (fifteen years ago)
I naively would like to see some strongly articulated Democratic views from the White House out there, even if many 'independents' are not listening and even if the right-wing media machine (Fox, Rush, etc.) is busy with their own version of the truth
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:06 (fifteen years ago)
i think they are both important!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, December 7, 2010 9:53 AM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark
i want to know by what objective standards we can consider this a 'weak deal' when youre negotiating w/ a pretty firm brick wall
thats a serious question, not an argument in & of itself btw
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
the coverage im reading is more 'mixed' than 'fail' so....
what do u know ... a compromise?
"A good compromise leaves everyone mad"
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:32 (fifteen years ago)
Except for this. Can someone explain his logic to me?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:33 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, there's a bunch of "oooh, Jedi Mind Tricks" stuff in that article I'm just not swallowing.
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)
it implies a lot of 'master plan' esque political manuvering i dont buy, but i think he explains the actual implications correctly!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:41 (fifteen years ago)
he just got the tea party congress to approve an economic stimulus, yeah?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:42 (fifteen years ago)
If we reform the tax code, and cut entitlements and defense, we should do so for structural, long-term reasons, not in response to a particular crisis. That's the chance we now have, if Obama leads the way (as I suspect he will).
shyeah right
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)
Sullivan and Klein have "spun" the look-we-got-unemployment-benefits-extended as a plus for twelve hours.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:45 (fifteen years ago)
haha sully will always stand by his man
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:45 (fifteen years ago)
honestly that's probably worth it under the circumstances. xp
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:46 (fifteen years ago)
i agree with them that 13 months is pretty significant, though! not that it makes the deal palatable but its a lot better than i expected given the gop intractability
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:46 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:45 AM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark
its not?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:46 (fifteen years ago)
Unemployment benefits should never have been a negotiating chip – a total non-starter.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)
very curious to see how Pelosi maneuvers her caucus in response to this proposed compromise (if anybody's brought this up I missed it)
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
i would love for ppl to go through & identify points where dems dropped the ball vs. points where the circumstances -- often set by poor earlier decisions -- were limiting their options. this doesnt seem like a place where negotiations failed!
another ex: the argument that dems could only run moderates in purple districts in 08 was responsible for problems w/ health care bill, less than the health care negotiations themselves. etc.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
what would Pelosi gain from voting for this? she could kick it down the road to the next Congress (altho what she would gain from that is also debatable). she has no good options here.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
Maybe McConnell, Obama, and Boehner agreed to one of those backroom deals whereby they won't kick up much of a fuss about DADT in the lame duck session, but we won't know until the biographies are written.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:52 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:48 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
yeah well they were
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
sucks doesn't it.
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:54 (fifteen years ago)
I want a cookie.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 16:57 (fifteen years ago)
nothing i like should be a negotiation chip
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
i think at least some of the blame falls w/ pelosi and reid for inadequate planning. like we come out of the elections and everyone KNOWS this shit will be on the table but... no one seemed to know what to do
― max, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
Pelosi knew what to do
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:01 (fifteen years ago)
she's the only one in the Reid-Pelosi-Obama triumvirate that actually gets shit passed and holds her caucus together!
iirc obama doesnt have a 'caucus'
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:03 (fifteen years ago)
yes I know that
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:06 (fifteen years ago)
you can sub in "party" for "caucus" in his case if it makes you feel better
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:07 (fifteen years ago)
I want my cookies with negotiation chips.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:09 (fifteen years ago)
If it makes deej feel better, the best contrarian analysis I read about what happened last night.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:13 (fifteen years ago)
And in his televised statement--although what he said all made sense, to me at least--his tone was timid and defensive, I thought. He looked weary.
^^^OTM.
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
If Obama didn't want to fight about it now, why go for a two year agreement that will bring this up in 2012. If you're gonna "compromise", push it to 2013, a non-election year.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
obama may be thinking that campaign trail = briar patch
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)
both parties want to fight about this in 2012, obviously
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
http://imagecache5.art.com/p/LRG/29/2933/8MERD00Z/english-school-brer-rabbit-and-brer-fox-1962.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)
i'm coming right up to the line and waggling my toe over it, aren't i
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
I don't know if I even want to ask but... what is the deal Brer Foz's pants in that picture
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
which is rmde material because we just fought about this in 2008 duh
Brer FOX duh
i assume you're talking about his britches
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
i like the idea of Brer Foz though
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/david-stockman-we-need-major-tax-increases/
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:25 (16 minutes ago)
wait, whats the difference -- is fighting 'never compromising' or ...
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
Stockman = basically the only adult in the room
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBcY6zUn48A
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
Stockman was once decidedly not the most adult person in the room.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:02 (fifteen years ago)
i like in goole's link where when questioned about Reagan era tax cuts + deficit spending he responds "we shouldn't have, but we got away with it" (referring to 1 trillion deficit... contrasted to today's 14 trill)
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:09 (fifteen years ago)
Stockman famously betrayed the Reagan White House by submitting to a long William Greider interview for The Atlantic Monthly, in which he admitted the budget package was a "Trojan horse" for tax cuts for the rich.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)
"like"
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)
"admitted the budget package was a "Trojan horse" for tax cuts for the rich."
ha! nice...
I really didn't know anything about this guy until his NYT op-ed piece from about 4 months back. seems like he's being basically ignored by conservative pundits. or have they gone after him and I've just missed it?
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:15 (fifteen years ago)
Thrown off the reservation in 1985.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:17 (fifteen years ago)
I read the book that Greider expanded into a book: one of the best exposés of the early Reagan years. Stockman is smart as a whip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)
interesting. i'll have to check out the Greider book.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:21 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.amazon.com/Education-David-Stockton-Signet/dp/0451149122/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1291749722&sr=8-13
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:22 (fifteen years ago)
more recount hilarity in my home state:
Minn. GOP punishes leaders who supported IP's Hornerby Tom Scheck, Minnesota Public RadioDecember 4, 2010
Delegates at the Republican Party State Central Committee on Saturday approved a two-year party ban on 18 high-profile Republicans who supported Independence Party candidate Tom Horner for governor in the November 2010 election.
The list includes former GOP governors Al Quie and Arne Carlson and former U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger, and GOP donor George Pillsbury.
The motion, which passed on a 59-55 vote, forbids them from being Republican delegates or attending the Republican National Convention in 2012.
Republican Party Chair Tony Sutton said the vote reflects unhappiness that Republican Tom Emmer trails Democrat Mark Dayton in the recount to determine the winner of the governor's race. Dayton is leading in the race by about 8,800 votes.
Delegate Jim Newberger of Becker said Emmer might be ahead in the recount, were it not for the Horner endorsements.
"These people, their money and their influence, possibly cost us 8,000 votes," said Newberger. "These are some big names, but it's time for the Republican Party to grow a spine. Either you're a Republican or you're not."
Opponents of the measure said it makes the party look vindictive.
"We can't exactly take away a former governor's title," said Jen De Journett of Maple Grove. "We can't vote people out who may or may not live in this state, and we're going to look like a bunch of goofballs."
Party Chair Sutton acknowledged the motion will be difficult to enforce, but he said it grows out of party members' frustration over the outcome of the governor's race.
"The governor's race was very close, and they feel like they wanted to send a message that, 'Hey, you can't just say that you're a Republican and then go off and support the other person. That isn't right.' And I think that frustration is part of the venting that took place here today," said Sutton.
The State Canvassing Board is expected to certify the winner in the race on Dec. 14.
― EIEIoOoOO (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)
“The tax proposal announced by the president clearly presents the differences between Democrats and Republicans,” Ms. Pelosi said in her statement. “Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?
“The Democratic provisions will create jobs and help 155 million workers through tax cuts for the middle class, helping working families who are struggling and growing the economy. The Republican demands would provide tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, fail to create jobs and increase the deficit.”
She continued: “To add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America’s richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit.Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.”
luv ya Nancy don't ever change
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:08 (fifteen years ago)
Bbbbbbut we had to give in on the estate tax, Obama will say because it was the only way to protect the middle class (plus soon to be out of office blue dog Dem Blanche Lincoln liked it).
I know Deej I must be naive for believing that a death tax deal did not have to be part of the agreement.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:18 (fifteen years ago)
democracy is hard!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:37 (fifteen years ago)
why do ppl vote for GOP ;_;
moveon.org want progressive Dem senators to filibuster the Obama deal
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:48 (fifteen years ago)
if this risks DADT im against it
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:48 (fifteen years ago)
although im sure thats a tradeoff GOP bigwigs would be 100% fine with, for obvious reasons
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)
Anyone caught his press conference an hour ago? He was pretty angry: he called left-wing critics 'sanctimonious.'
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:50 (fifteen years ago)
Here.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:52 (fifteen years ago)
angry at the wrong people
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
he called the senate republicans hostage takers, that's pretty cool
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
those "sanctimonious left-wing critics" are the reason why he's in the White House. they were the suckers who bought his line about "change we can believe in."
he keeps going like this and talking shit about the people who put him where he is, though, then he'll be out of a job in 2 years.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
Nah – he knows the left will vote for him anyway.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:09 (fifteen years ago)
And, really, voters have themselves to blame if they assumed Obama was liberal.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
"sanctimonious" for having the unmitigated audacity to defend (what's left of) the American middle class!
that might play well when Barry shakes his tin cup at some hedge funder's Hamptons retreat, and those are the people who REALLY matter to both parties these days.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
he is liberal
lol @ eisbaer's butthurt
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:11 (fifteen years ago)
the 'sanctimonious left wing critics' did not kingmake him. they are but a small small but vocal group of his overall support, which iirc remains historically consistent
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
ur sanctimony & his acting here are all great political theater, though, that works perfectly for reelection time
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:14 (fifteen years ago)
"i was assailed by the left for ...." etc
was gonna say feel free to take "sanctimonious left-wing critics" w/ a grain of salt today, he couldnt be more obvious
― tremendoid, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
Bam thinks "The New York Times editorial page" is the very definition of Trotskyism apparently. He must be secretly meeting with W and Cheney, along with his recent photo op w/ Kissinger.
Such a scumbag. I will campaign for anyone who runs against him in the primaries. (unless it's from the 'right of him' lol)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
tbf half the criticisms in this thread ring of a need for therapeutic need for their projected imagined version of a fighting liberal to stand up & say 'im mad as hell & im not gonna take it any more!' more than it is about effective governance given political realities.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)
double-use of need, oops
well, it IS the "playing to the peanut gallery" aspect of Barry's unwarranted attack on the "santimonious left" that is so insulting. the guy just does not know how to stroke the folks who voted for him (a mistake the GOP never makes even when [pre-Teabagger days] they kept their "wackos" at bay).
people will only put up with being set up as a red-headed stepchild fit only to be beat for so long.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
so this is about your ego
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:32 (fifteen years ago)
has it ever occurred to you, deej, that MAYBE folks like me or the "sanctimonious left" (a charge i haven't heard levelled against ME since i was an undergrad BTW) aren't arguing for "ego" but b/c we think that our views are correct, that Barry is giving them short-shrift AND not getting enough in return for shitting on progressive policy goals?
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:38 (fifteen years ago)
I'm thinking deej is working for the white house press secretary at this point.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:46 (fifteen years ago)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/preibus-shoring-up-support-for-rnc-bid.php
is it possible that the next RNC chair could be a man with the name RIENCE PRIEBUS
― goole, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:47 (fifteen years ago)
deej deej myers
― (name) in (some place i'm not from) (buzza), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:49 (fifteen years ago)
http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/12/be-citizen-not-subject.html
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:52 (fifteen years ago)
i recommend breathing deep while reading
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:53 (fifteen years ago)
I'm beginning to think all these compromises are simply setting the stage for a Republican president in 2012. Not only does Obama's pragmatic approach not play with the public, but the Republicans will now be able to campaign saying that Obama's half-measures and compromises are exactly what's keeping the economy from recovering. It's a frustrating sign of the status quo that compromise (pragmatism) essentially equals concession (defeat).
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:17 (fifteen years ago)
there is no Republican nominee that can unify their party much less beat Obama. stop it with the '12 reelection handwringing (it's way too early anyway)
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:20 (fifteen years ago)
like let's go down the list:
RomneyGingrichPalinHuckabeeRubio (?)Santorum (?)
losers all
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 10:45 (11 hours ago)
I doubt he's even interested.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
why do you say rubio is a loser?
plus, there are many other possible candidates. they just don't have great name-recognition yet.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:31 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah, have you forgotten the animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty?
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:32 (fifteen years ago)
i don't think Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie will have much traction, either.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:34 (fifteen years ago)
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson)
shit, already taken
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, December 7, 2010 4:17 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
1) economy is recovering, however joblessly2) this bill will work as a not-great but still helpful stimulus3) the only reason ppl say his approach isnt 'playing' with the public is bcuz of the past election, which was historically pre-ordained, & wasnt even all that bad considering we were in the middle of a significant recession.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
(xpost) Fukken animal magnets, how do they work?
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
people are picking Thune and Rubio because everyone else has already revealed themselves to be extremely flawed.
I'm starting to think it's the Huckster.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
^^^agreed
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
interested to know how other posters stand on a tradeoff between letting taxes expire (& losing unemployment benefits, DADT & the nuke treaty stuff)
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
some part of me would like to jab the GOP in the eye economically for once, for yet again using (then betraying) culture warrior b.s. into conniving the public out of millions of dollars & further concentrating wealth. But then, dont give me a timetable for my freedom!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:06 (fifteen years ago)
interested to know how other posters stand on a tradeoff between letting taxes expire (& losing unemployment benefits, DADT & the nuke treaty stuff)-all taxes should've expired. we're $4 trillion in debt-losing unemployment benefits -- the GOP wouldn't really have let that happen-DADT hasn't been repealed yet-and START hasn't been ratified
― kamerad, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:25 (fifteen years ago)
but obama's a genius
― kamerad, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:26 (fifteen years ago)
-all taxes should've expired. we're $4 trillion in debt― kamerad, Tuesday, December 7, 2010 11:25 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark
Ahhh, the political suicide approach.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:34 (fifteen years ago)
Well the GOP is determineed to keep DADT and START off the table anyway and were never something they were going to conceed so your hypothetical situation is pointless.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:36 (fifteen years ago)
-losing unemployment benefits -- the GOP wouldn't really have let that happen
I don't doubt for a second that the GOP would have let this happen
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
^^^
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
No -- the GOP might have let it happen but the Dems wouldn't have known (or had no interest in) exploiting it.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw I also assume that John Boehner probably stabbed a few hobos on his way to work this morning
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:52 (fifteen years ago)
also John McCain ran over a gay marine
and Jim DeMint ate an anchor baby for breakfast
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:53 (fifteen years ago)
all reasonable assumptions.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:54 (fifteen years ago)
and tasty. I'm getting hungry, guys.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 December 2010 23:59 (fifteen years ago)
the GOP proved this past year that they were more than willing to let extended UI benefits expire, esp. when there is a Democrat in the White House. they'd be less willing to do so if McCain/Palin were in there (e.g., they extended UI benefits in 1983 when Ronnie Raygun was in the White House). so all of the talk about "deficit reduction" as a rationale for letting extended UI benefits expire is horseshit, i thought ALL y'all were smart enough to recognize that much!
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:08 (fifteen years ago)
"Julian Assange not the bad guy here - the homosexual soldier is."
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147500974
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:16 (fifteen years ago)
this is not good
at the same time, the judge's grounds for throwing out the case (father cannot file on behalf of the son) do seem legitimate to me
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:40 (fifteen years ago)
can Awlaki be convicted of treason in absentia? (Can you even bring a case to court against someone who refuses to appear? I guess they have to be arrested first... hmmm)
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:42 (fifteen years ago)
I mean Awlaki's obviously a bad dude who has betrayed his country, but our law enforcement apparatus does not really extend far enough to enable his capture and at the same time he can inflict harm on the US without any regards to legal niceties. I don't want the President to have the authority to just kill whoever he wants (Nixon would've LOVED that) but on the other hand it isn't clear to me if there's any good options for the US admin here.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)
of all the thing that ppl list of what obama has done wrong, the awlaki thing is the least offensive to me
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)
really? the legal implications are pretty alarming
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:48 (fifteen years ago)
I mean enabling the executive to just kill whoever it wants... that's Stalinist stuff
i liked this paragraph from pareene today:
In lieu of class solidarity, which is a privilege only afforded to the wealthy these days, American politics are mostly about tribal self-identification. Most Republicans get this, and that's why being a shouty asshole doesn't hurt Christie. Democrats -- with a couple of exceptions, like Anthony Weiner -- are not so good at this, which is why MSNBC's liberal hosts whine about how Obama needs to "get tough" all the time without ever explaining how that would help him achieve policy goals and not just make them feel like they're backing a winner.
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:55 (fifteen years ago)
I mean Awlaki's obviously a bad dude who has betrayed his country,
No we don't know: he's never been arraigned.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:01 (fifteen years ago)
all we're privileged to know is what the government tells us.
i like this one, from the same pareene piece
While congressional Democrats are to blame for putting Obama in this position, and Obama's hands were basically tied, he continues to imagine that his liberal critics are upset with the idea that compromises need to be made in order to accomplish progressive policy goals. Some of them are that stupid. But lots of them are actually critics of the White House's legislative strategy, and their apparent willingness to preemptively compromise before the negotiations have already begun.
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:01 (fifteen years ago)
assuming that "already" there at the end is a bloggy typo
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:13 (fifteen years ago)
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:42 PM (34 minutes ago)
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
not that it matters now, of course
at the same time, the judge's grounds for throwing out the case (father cannot file on behalf of the son) do seem legitimate to me― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:40 PM (44 minutes ago)
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:40 PM (44 minutes ago)
yeah this is what a lot of people thought would happen - haven't read the opinion but the real defeat is this: "He also said decisions about targeted killings in such circumstances were a “political question” for executive branch officials to make — not judges."
GWB appointee of course
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:33 (fifteen years ago)
annoying that this gets thrown out on standing but the 9th circuit apparently willing to hear a bunch of hicks try to defend prop 8 (ahnold & brown both refuse to defend it - someone should have told them that's the executive's job, duh, just look at obama and DADT)
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:37 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Tuesday, December 7, 2010 8:24 PM (14 minutes ago)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-6194.ZO.html
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
― kamerad, Tuesday, December 7, 2010 5:25 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― kamerad, Tuesday, December 7, 2010 5:26 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
nice work managing to avoid anything that could resemble an ethical quandry, or suggest that politics might be something other than an all-or-nothing approach, while simultaneously spouting bullshit
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:13 (fifteen years ago)
― kamerad, Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:01 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
of course you do, its the exact same line you & yr dudes on this thread have been repeating ad nauseaum as if you guys are crack hostage negotiators who just happen to comment on political discussions. Do you really honestly think that political negotiations are so simple, that obama is so stupid as to not understand the idea of 'aim high, then bargain down'?? hes not tony cox vs. bernie mac in bad santa you idiots
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:15 (fifteen years ago)
& before you come at me w/ more OF COURSE BCUZ YOU THINK OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG ive already reiterated numerous issues that i find him to be entirely wrong about -- but this attempt to make it seem like hes some overwhelmingly incompetent & naive centrist is such a self-righteous & twisted narrative this its become gross to read.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:17 (fifteen years ago)
LEAVE BARACK ALONE
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
oops too l8
did think it was pretty funny max decided to post the exerpt he did and not kamerad's
ya it was pretty hilarious
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:20 (fifteen years ago)
http://i.imgur.com/Ctjey.jpg
hey deej, let's see how long obama's latest realpolitik big wins last once the great debt-ceiling debate of 2011 commences later this winter
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:21 (fifteen years ago)
wait you mean ... politics will continue to exist in the future? No shit. well now i wish obama had solved that; if only he had let taxes go up on the middle class in the middle of a recession!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:23 (fifteen years ago)
surely then inane debates from disingenuous republicans would be forever finished
no deej, i mean, with republicans in charge of the house in '11, and the wind at their back, watch out for them all of a sudden finding the 13-month unemployment insurance extension unaffordable. they'll play brinksmanship games with the debt ceiling and it'll be bye bye unemployment + payroll tax holiday + AMT etc
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:30 (fifteen years ago)
also stop with the dickhead tone, fuck man
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:39 (fifteen years ago)
yes, the republicans will continue to be assholes no matter what we do. im not sure i understand what that has to do with anything
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:42 (fifteen years ago)
jeej, obama's habit of capitulation has consequences. sure, the republicans will continue to be assholes, but letting them win contest after framing increasingly empowers them. say (pray) the economy turns around in the next couple years -- guess what? all of a sudden that vindicates the bush tax cuts that just got extended. is being worried about that likelihood somehow unreasonable?
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:49 (fifteen years ago)
how are you defining them always 'winning'?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:55 (fifteen years ago)
once again, the reality of electoral representative democracy is ... people you disagree with get to vote too! and influence policy!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:56 (fifteen years ago)
i fundamentally disagree w/ the idea that if the economy is better in 2012 than the GOP is going to get credit for it -- the president reaps what the economy sows, good or bad
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:07 (fifteen years ago)
i hope you're right. my worry is that whatever frenzy the GOP whipped their base up into this past midterm over the socialist-commie-fascist-kenyan-muslim is nothing compared to what's coming, at which point, all precedent may be for naught
and deej, i never said the republicans are "always winning"; sorry for any confusion (and i left a word out of my post -- "but letting them win contest after framing CONTEST increasingly empowers them"). but they're not doing bad! framing contests they seem to have won lately include -the public's ignorance that obama's lowered most people's taxes-a majority of small business owners make under $250,000 a year-businesses aren't hiring because of "uncertainty"-the deficit is somehow a worse problem than unemploymentall of which are easily addressed by competent messaging that unfortunately isn't forthcoming from our democratic politicians. i'm not rooting against them! i'm discouraged that they've got a losing streak going lately, in terms of public debate, not because this affects my ego, but because i think it's bad for the country to let lie after republican lie gain traction. there's a reason supply-side trickle down bullshit has been predominant for thirty years, and we're STILL lowering taxes
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:16 (fifteen years ago)
so we agree that the real issue here has been messaging / communications related
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)
j0rd otm
― iatee, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:24 (fifteen years ago)
i dunno whether it'll be BYE BYE 13-month extended unemployment and payroll tax holiday. i would NOT be surprised to see there be HELLO higher minimum retirement age and lower benefits for Social Security (if not HELLO privitizing Social Security) tho' ... with Barry getting rolled into accepting THOSE steaming piles of shit as well.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:26 (fifteen years ago)
yeah I am pretty sure we are not gonna privatize social security
― iatee, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:27 (fifteen years ago)
i'd agree messaging's part of the problem, deej. i think the GOP stands up for their (evil) convictions a lot better than the dems do their more egalitarian philosophy, and the public rewards the GOP for "integrity." not really sure that's messaging though
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:29 (fifteen years ago)
i think it's pretty foolish to say that the obama administration specifically has failed at messaging. for one, the obama people, going back to when they had to overcome the 'inevitability' that was hillary all the way on thru mccain, ran as good a messaging campaign as was seen in the last three presidential election cycles. they aren't dumb people that all of a sudden just forgot how to appeal to the public. but this issue of the economy & taxes is not an issue that has been owned by democrats for any significant period of time in the past 30 years. republicans, for various reasons, have always been backed by the public on economic issues, even when the public tells pollsters that they support liberal policies. kamerad is pretty much asking the obama administration to reverse tenants of political science and at least three decades of history in a matter of months. the fact that the public voted obama & a record number of dems in based on the economy & then voted in as many republicans as they did in the midterms really illustrates the thought processes of our fellow citizens.
not to mention that the things you list are rather detailed policy points that don't interest the news media or the citizenry really at all.
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:33 (fifteen years ago)
i think that dems can make the case a million times over that tax breaks for the rich are the EXACT opposite of how you would ideally like to stimulate the economy & i still think that it would do nothing in the face of "democrats are trying to take our money and give it to lazy poor people"
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:35 (fifteen years ago)
i think it would be nice to think that democrats in positions of power have the ability to just straight up tell people what we all think is right and that those people are going to agree simply because no one has ever made these sensible arguments to them but it's just... not that easy
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:43 (fifteen years ago)
The fractious caucus and the opacity emanating from the White House don't help.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)
so then j0rdan they should grapple with that 30-year legacy, deal with it short term somehow (honest, i'm not a genius white house messaging guru), in a way that changes it long term. that's what reagan did . . . machiavellian style, speaking in racist code and such, to drive the nail in the coffin of 30+ years of new deal high marginal tax rates. i'm not advocating that obama sells his soul to appeal to middle america about tax hikes, but it almost seems sometimes like the white house is too snooty to go populist
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)
i might also add (though i sound like a broken record) that appointing people like Timothy Geithner (who SURPRISE SURPRISE had a hand in this tax "compromise") and Larry Summers, being counseled by the likes of Bob Rubin, and letting Wall Street/bank executives keep their bonuses and obscene paychecks doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the White House REALLY IS down with more equitable/progressive taxes or economic policies to begin with.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:51 (fifteen years ago)
i'm not advocating that obama sells his soul to appeal to middle america about tax hikes, but it almost seems sometimes like the white house is too snooty to go populist
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:52 (fifteen years ago)
i guess i just think that there's so much interference & static in between "presidential administration" ----------> "public" that i don't see how the obama ppl could even begin to grapple w/ these things
the news media is not favorable to actually liberal democratic presidential figures (candidates & now obama alike)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:56 (fifteen years ago)
I wonder if during the transition Obama and his advisers studied the FDR example too closely; FDR after all justified his hiring of Joseph Kennedy to head the SEC by arguing that he needed a fox to guard the hen house. But the shadowplay is too abstruse to make sense of: you hire former Goldman and Sachs execs to join your economic team as a signal of stability yet Wall Street still publicly complained a couple of months ago about Obama's populist rhetoric.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:57 (fifteen years ago)
This is bullshit. The news media like a good fight, the bloodier the better... and ideologically they bend with the wind of the polls. I can't tell you how many newsweek, washington post and nyt editorials I've read that lambaste the president on poor messaging and not appearing like a fighter. Haven't read a lot that attack him on his policies. If he acts like a winner and the public supports him they'll back his policies.
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:01 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, and isn't it part of their job in the white house to game the media in favor of their economic policies?
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
. . . which i guess backs up eisbaer's point about obama's rubin cabal
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:03 (fifteen years ago)
To continue the history lesson: at the beginning of Reagan's term his handlers had to overcome the public's aversion to "conservatism" and its worry that he would bomb Russia without thinking twice.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:03 (fifteen years ago)
if you guys think that the news media is just waiting for the liberals to put up a fight, you should read this
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0307408027.MZZZZZZZ.jpg
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:05 (fifteen years ago)
Every administration has its mix of true believers and "pragmatists," but Rahm Emmanuel acted like James Baker without any Ed Meeses in the Cabinet reminding the President why he was elected. Look at the brouhaha over the confirmation of Elizabeth Warren.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:05 (fifteen years ago)
Well, the Beltway media loves "bipartisanship," Broder style.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:06 (fifteen years ago)
3rd party loser for me
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:09 (fifteen years ago)
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:06 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark
exactly, and they call on democrats to do this, not the republicans (the party of strong men of principle)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:16 (fifteen years ago)
people you disagree with get to vote too! and influence policy!
You should listen more to your own advice dude.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:40 (fifteen years ago)
But the tax benefits will flow most heavily to the highest earners, just as the original cuts did when they were passed in 2001 and 2003. At least a quarter of the tax savings will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population....In fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale — individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000.
...In fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale — individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000.
Pardon my ignorance (yet again), but why would individuals making less than $20,000 and families earning less than $40,000 see a tax increase?
― need to impressive a girl? (Z S), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:43 (fifteen years ago)
shared sacrifice, i think
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:59 (fifteen years ago)
oh, this headline:
For Obama, Tax Deal Is a Back-Door Stimulus Plan
― a tenth level which features a single castle (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:03 (fifteen years ago)
The proposal does not include an extension of Mr. Obama’s signature tax cut, the Making Work Pay credit, which provided a credit of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for families of low and moderate income. Instead, the plan creates a one-year reduction in Social Security payroll taxes, which are generally levied on the first $106,800 of income. For an individual earning $110,000, that provision would reduce payroll taxes by $2,136.Although the $120 billion payroll tax reduction offers nearly twice the tax savings of the credit it replaces, it will nonetheless lead to higher tax bills for individuals with incomes below $20,000 and families that make less than $40,000. That is because their payroll tax savings are less than the $400 or $800 they will lose from the Making Work Pay credit.
Although the $120 billion payroll tax reduction offers nearly twice the tax savings of the credit it replaces, it will nonetheless lead to higher tax bills for individuals with incomes below $20,000 and families that make less than $40,000. That is because their payroll tax savings are less than the $400 or $800 they will lose from the Making Work Pay credit.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:04 (fifteen years ago)
Oh holy shit.
My taxes will go up, Warren Buffet's will go down.
Working on some rage here.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:19 (fifteen years ago)
but your rage is really sanctimony, you see ... Barry said so.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:39 (fifteen years ago)
My feeling on this is that it's a terrible move for Obama. Bottom line is that working people see their taxes increase and feel like they don't have a champion. Had he fought on this, the outcome might have been even worse for working people in the short run, but at least they would feel like it was the GOP's fault and like someone was in their corner.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:47 (fifteen years ago)
I mean the GOP just fucking hung him with his own "bipartisanship." He should have called their bluff and let them deal with the fallout of not extending unemployment if they really wanted to go that way. And at least if all tax cuts expired there would be some cashflow to pay down the deficit.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:49 (fifteen years ago)
we'll be through this same song-and-dance again -- whether it's concerning the upcoming battle over raising the debt ceiling, or whatever else the GOP decides they want to block. i hate to do a slippery-slope analysis, but here we are and i have little faith that Obama is going to put his foot down (or if he does, where).
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:50 (fifteen years ago)
hmm that is pretty shitty frankly. not feelin it
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:50 (fifteen years ago)
He should have called their bluff and let them deal with the fallout of not extending unemployment if they really wanted to go that way. And at least if all tax cuts expired there would be some cashflow to pay down the deficit.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 11:49 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
im not sure how that would let them 'deal with it'
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:51 (fifteen years ago)
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Tuesday, December 7, 2010 11:50 PM (48 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this kind of analysis is so so worthless. if you think hes putting his foot down too far to one side, at least be honest w/ your rhetoric.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:52 (fifteen years ago)
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 12:51 AM Bookmark
Go on the stump and hammer Republicans for it. Play the blame game. All this "bipartisan compromise" seems to rely on imputing good faith to legislators that show none. The GOP's #1 goal, if not their only goal, is to make sure Obama does not get reelected, therefore you have to look askance at any "deal" they're willing to make.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:56 (fifteen years ago)
i just don't trust the electorate to parse any of that in this particular case, esp. given what they're going through, or the media to help them obv. eg. in his defining 'standoff' clinton had the benefit of a douche speaker all but putting a huge novelty padlock on the capitol entrance and waiting for applause, i think even with the radicalized freshman this gop would figure out how to fiddle in unison long enough to make this drag on obama and muddle hopelessly whatever narrative he's able to muster in the next two years.
― tremendoid, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:08 (fifteen years ago)
Well shit, we might as well just give up on 2012 then I suppose.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:10 (fifteen years ago)
the fact that unemployment benefits were up really fucked any of the significant bargaining power that obama could've had
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:12 (fifteen years ago)
& added to that is the fact that every republican in congress would've legitimately let those things lapse
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:13 (fifteen years ago)
Also I think you are underestimating the psychological impact of seeing Obama looking defeated on this.
Also in re your parsing point, same can be said for his "compromise" -- other than people actually receiving unemployment benefits, most of his base comes out behind on this.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:14 (fifteen years ago)
Agree the unemployment benefits were a little bit of a shoot-the-hostage situation.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:15 (fifteen years ago)
like, i'm much more angry over the fact that it's now apparently seen as part of politics that maybe we shouldn't extend benefits to the unemployed than i am over obama extending the tax cuts for two more years
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:17 (fifteen years ago)
don't know what you mean hurting. and btw i'm all for putting these race-against-the-clock best-we-can-do's atm in context of whatever messaging obama & friends (and us, deej) *should have* been doing for the last year or so, gotta realize pressure *builds* to get things ever more right and more correct the more you fuck up
― tremendoid, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:17 (fifteen years ago)
oops this i mean Well shit, we might as well just give up on 2012 then I suppose.
― tremendoid, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:18 (fifteen years ago)
gotta realize pressure *builds* to get things ever more right and more correct the more you fuck up
... or else swimming rabbits start attempting to assassinate you!
― the structuralist constructions of (Viceroy), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:34 (fifteen years ago)
haha wtf “The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind.
― tremendoid, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:45 (fifteen years ago)
gonna take a turtle to seal the deal this time /bob hope
― tremendoid, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 06:50 (fifteen years ago)
i just got my holiday card from the white house
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 07:05 (fifteen years ago)
if i were really cynical, or convinced that the GOP were really smart cynical bastards instead of dumb cynical bastards, i'd swear that the GOP designed this "deal" to deliberately fracture Obama's base (and that they have plans to do the same over the course of the next 2 years). then i remember that the GOP REALLY BELIEVES that tax cuts for the rich, "starve the beast" wr2 government expenditures, complete laissez-faire etc. are actually GOOD POLICIES in themselves.
― deutsche Scheisse prawns (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 08:14 (fifteen years ago)
this "anti free market" bullshit claim that the GOP uses as a Dem straw man is just atrocious. it's all about dollars on all sides.
except for Bernie Sanders' corner, cuz he drinks his hot chocolate COLD.
― hot weiners is the best and i want a hot weiner (the table is the table), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 08:44 (fifteen years ago)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:17 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
It's so hard to negotiate with people who would happily watch the country descend into chaos for political advantage. What leverage does Obama have to make the Republicans do anything?
He had some leverage at the beginning to maybe get a bigger stimulus, because the economy's state was so obviously the fault of Republicans. But now the public thinks it's Obama's economy, so there's no real motivation for the Republicans to do anything. They'll probably try the government shutdown again next year.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 09:01 (fifteen years ago)
my post applies to both the GOP & the news media who failed to stop everything to say HOLD ON THIS IS REALLY FUCKED UP & WRONG
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 09:03 (fifteen years ago)
this issue of the economy & taxes is not an issue that has been owned by democrats for any significant period of time in the past 30 years. republicans, for various reasons, have always been backed by the public on economic issues, even when the public tells pollsters that they support liberal policies.
This is the nut of the problem. Narrative ALWAYS trumps facts. The Labour Party in the UK had the same problem for years, and it only turned around after John Major presided over a run on sterling and the UK having to get bailed out by the IMF. It was one of the few times that facts on the ground created a narrative strong enough to overturn the prevailing one. Then Blair and Brown arrived with pro-finance policies and ruled during one of the longest (worldwide, it must be said) peace-time booms ever and for a decade or so, it was Labour who seemed credible on the economy. But all this may be going down the dumper as the Tories continue to hammer home the meme that "Labour spent all the money, now daddy has to come in and restore financial sanity".
it almost seems sometimes like the white house is too snooty to go populist
I don't think it's snootiness, I think it's Obama being handcuffed a little by the story of his life. It would be political suicide to become an Angry Black Man president. This may not be explicitly on Obama's mind but I think avoiding that type of thing has been formative to his temperament and allowed him to get where he is today. Changing gears and becoming ferocious, confrontational and name-calling would I think have the opposite effect that his boosters would like - it would play into every nightmare the Republicans have tried to gin up about him in the minds of the American voter.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 11:45 (fifteen years ago)
So what would be 'fighting fire with fire' between a shouty white Dem President and the GOP becomes 'angry black man' if Obama channels his supporters' ire?
Whenever this kind of thing happens or there is a disappointment I sing poooooooor Barack Obama to the tune of poooooooor Professor Higgins from My Fair Lady.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 12:07 (fifteen years ago)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.)
I said this twelve hours ago but deej implied I was an ideologue or something.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 12:10 (fifteen years ago)
I kinda think so. Maybe I'm making excuses. Maybe I'm mired in the past. But I feel like it's a thing.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 12:41 (fifteen years ago)
I don't the problem is mostly messaging; the problem is that what he's doing is aligned with what the GOP wants. It may be that that's all that is "politically" possible (I'm not convinced of that, though), but it still doesn't change that extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich & affirming the estate tax are GOP priorities that Obama is now supporting. I don't care about intentions, I care about results.
― Euler, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 12:45 (fifteen years ago)
don't *think* the problem
fuckin jet lag
So what should Obama give up the next time unemployment benefits are about to run out? Because this economy will not turn around before then. How 'bout when the tax cuts are set to expire the next time around? Will the Republicans be in a weaker position then?
Heard on the radio this morning that not only will taxes increase for lower incomes, thanks to the expiration of the Make Work Pay program, but that those making more than $75,000 (who did not benefit from the Make Work Pay program) will see not insignificant returns. I think the example was a family making $200,000 would now get $4000 back? But a family making $36,000 would actually get less back than they were getting before this "deal."
The biggest bit of bullshit about this whole business is that the Republicans are always "deficit, deficit, deficit!" and the Bush tax cuts comprised a huge driver of that deficit. Narrative may trump fact, but I wish Obama made a more concerted effort to explain this to the American people. Just flat out: "the Republicans and Bush exacerbated the deficit crisis, it's time to bring things back under control."
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 13:00 (fifteen years ago)
Well that's a narrative, not just a fact, so it's got a fightin chance I think!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 13:06 (fifteen years ago)
can not wait for 2 years from now when we get to have the same idiotic argument about the Bush tax cuts, again. and the deficit will be even larger. which will be Obama's fault, of course. which is why he MUST extend tax cuts for the rich. it only makes sense.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:13 (fifteen years ago)
Exactly.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:17 (fifteen years ago)
this is semi-interesting:
http://www.frumforum.com/chamber-of-commerce-faces-local-revolts
― my little pony prophecy (will), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:19 (fifteen years ago)
Narrative may trump fact, but I wish Obama made a more concerted effort to explain this to the American people.me too. this can be done without seeming like an Angry Black Man. and he doesn't need to carry all the water. why isn't there an effective white house press team in place to refute republican talking points? every word that comes out of mitch mcconnell's and john boehner's and rush limbaugh's and glenn beck's and paul ryan's and mike pence's and jim demint's mouths should be thrown back in their faces, not only because they lie with impunity, but because their policies are bad for the country, on the very terms (deficit reduction, particularly) they pimp so hard. at least challenge what they're saying. bullies thrive in situations where no one talks back to them. obama and the white house come off snooty because either they don't seem to realize how schoolyard recesses work, or they don't care
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:25 (fifteen years ago)
Excuse me if this was already mentioned upthread, but in the shooting oneself in the foot department, I see that the estate tax handout included reflected the proposal sought by outgoing blue dog Dem senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas who is basically helping out the Arkansas living heirs of Sam Walton, owner of Walmart. Lincoln and Republican Senator Kyl negotiated this ugliness and Obama accepted it (rather than fight over "the death tax"). And yes I know Deej will say that's politics at work and Obama had no other choice, but I don't buy that.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:36 (fifteen years ago)
"why isn't there an effective white house press team in place to refute republican talking points? "
^^^my god. this.
i realized that you don't want to get bogged down playing defense all the time, but sheesh, guys. i really thought that effective comm was where the O admin would have things sewn up.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:36 (fifteen years ago)
(during the election, that is)
― my little pony prophecy (will), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:37 (fifteen years ago)
(of '08)
one thins Obama could have learnt from new labour, (at least from the early years), would have been to put in place a dirty street fighting press team to control the conversation.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:41 (fifteen years ago)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 7:41 AM Bookmark
Well I for one think it would be worth the risk, I mean I don't think we've ever seen anything close to "angry black man" at all out of Obama. And I really think right now people who still at all support or at least have the potential to again support Obama would just like to feel like someone is sticking up for them and channeling their frustrations. Something rings very hollow when he uses his "people are hurting" line -- I don't think it connects with anyone.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 14:50 (fifteen years ago)
He and his White House staff continue to think that he has to try to stand above the fray. But having he and his staff act "bipartisan" has not won him any points with 'independent' voters.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)
if he's trying not to seem angry, he's succeeding in becoming a scapegoat. if the economy recovers by 2012, the GOP line is going to be that it's despite the stimulus, and because of the tax cut extension. plus they're going to hang the deficit (now $900 billion larger thanks to this latest "compromise") around his neck, just like they're already doing, no matter that it's mostly their fault. the "american people" just proved resoundingly they're stupid enough to fall for these tricks
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:08 (fifteen years ago)
Well, no, J0rdan's right: presidents get the credit and blame for the economy. What matters is what kind of landscape he'll rule over.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:15 (fifteen years ago)
sure, that used to be the case, but after everything bush did, and how horrible the recession had grown, mccain was ahead in the polls until the september '08 stock market crash. it took something that dramatic to swing the polls back obama's way for good. that precedent doesn't bode well this time around. take citizens-united cash, add the apocalyptic '2012 endtime obama is a kenyan muslim antichrist' crowd, and stir in the conformism of "independents," and that would be one toxic environment, even if obama had played each hand perfectly
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:36 (fifteen years ago)
What matters is what kind of landscape he'll rule over.
This IIRC
http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdrp_0602_best_car_movies_12_z+road_warrior.jpg
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:38 (fifteen years ago)
― my little pony prophecy (will), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:36 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
im sort of curious as to what you guys are expecting here. tv ads? something besides sending admin officials to the sunday shows and setting up sympathetic op-eds? more austan goolsbee youtubes?
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:44 (fifteen years ago)
I think Ed was hinting at dark arts behind the scenes, playing the press corps like fiddles - Alastair Campbell / Malcolm Tucker type stuff
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:51 (fifteen years ago)
All of the above, plus Obama campaign style speeches throughout the country and using the e-mails accumulated from the campaign to encourage on point messages from Dems and maybe some confrontational straight to the point messages from the White House press secretary--Have him call out Rush and Glen Beck etc. The White House strategy has been that such engagement is demeaning and below them, but that White House approach has not worked.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:51 (fifteen years ago)
Obama needs to take the fight to them instead of play defense all the time. Set up an interview with the major papers and hammer the Republicans hard, then follow up with a prime time press conference focused specifically on the economy and call out the Republicans there. Bully pulpit. Don't equivocate. Just hammer, like they do. Force them to justify their position rather than them forcing you to meet them. Like when he bum-rushed their retreat? His approval #s went up after that, IIRC. And it got the message out that the Republicans HAD no message.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:52 (fifteen years ago)
like, Alastair Campbell used to hold these morning briefings that became the "in" thing to do - if you were invited you felt like one of the Cool Kids. he was always banging the drum for the government line but did it in such a clever way that it made reporters feel like they were dim or slow if they didn't agree
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:53 (fifteen years ago)
So far I've heard him bitch more about the idealogues on the left than the demagogues on the right, which seems like a misdirection of ire.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:54 (fifteen years ago)
kamerad, I don't see what you're bringing up as evidence that things have changed. The GOP still cares about tax cuts for the rich, & war rather than welfare as a way to help pay the poor. The Dems are mostly ok with that, just not as strongly. Everything else is just tribal affirmation, which is kinda what I think this thread ends up amounting to.
― Euler, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:56 (fifteen years ago)
every couple months now obama has done a big barnstorming tour. gibbs is always confrontational and "to the point" re: rush and beck and the rest and has been for the entire presidency. he didnt bum-rush their retreat, he just showed up after being invited. and iirc the health care bill didnt get any better because of it.
now id like to see obama out there fighting as much as anyone! believe me! i think goole is right that even just for "show," just to put in the time doing it, it would be a good idea. because it makes everyone feel like he cares.
BUT i feel like it cant be said enough--the problem here, with this issue, is not that obama lacks public support. hes got it! the democrats have got it! what they lack is good negotiating skills and faith that the american people will see that the GOP is the "real" villain if the tax cuts expire.
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)
The White House strategy has been that such engagement is demeaning and below them, but that White House approach has not worked.
yeah, except for that ill-fated attempt to take on FOX, which was just embarrassingly handled. you don't have to name names, just put up their talking points and bash them relentlessly with common sense.
Like when he bum-rushed their retreat? His approval #s went up after that, IIRC. And it got the message out that the Republicans HAD no message.
precisely. dude killed it.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:58 (fifteen years ago)
Larison:
The most tiresome response to this deal I have seen is the claim that it somehow helps Obama with “the center” because the left is unhappy about it. It seems clear to me that he has put himself in the position of being identified with the interests of the wealthy and powerful yet again, which has been one of the administration’s problems for two years. Something like two-thirds of the public favored letting the top rate go up, and that includes the precious voters of “the center,” and Obama has now effectively taken the very unpopular side of this debate.
Too-clever-by-half interpretations of this hold that Obama is playing a cunning long-term game. However, it is never cunning to abandon a core commitment, disillusion one’s most active supporters, and cede an opponent everything he wants from a relative position of strength in the hopes that the opponent will later be easier to outmaneuver after he has become even stronger. “Centrist” and conservative pundits who have been urging Obama to capitulate on this issue are rather like Gollum urging Frodo on into Shelob’s lair. “No, really, this is the right way to go!” Obama’s defenders on this are reduced to saying that the lair could have been a lot worse. Provided that he isn’t eaten by the spider, all will be well.
It’s worth noting that the argument for voting on START now contradicts the positive spin some Obama supporters are trying to put on the deal. The administration has correctly argued for voting on the treaty now. This is not just because it is important and should be ratified as soon as possible, but because they assume that five more Republican votes are more than enough to kill it outright. They take for granted that everything, including a treaty that has overwhelming consensus support, will be far more difficult to move through the Senate next year, and obviously the new Republican House will be even more combative. Everything gets much harder for Obama over the next years, and he is already giving in to the opposition before the new Congress has met.
People who insist that Obama is playing a long game haven’t taken account of the fact that, politically speaking, Obama has been steadily losing the long game for most of the last year. They are also overlooking the reality that Obama and the Democrats frittered away their advantages for much of the year, which hardly inspires confidence in anyone that they are going to become more effective once they are weaker.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:01 (fifteen years ago)
Do we have a thread where we talk about our realizations that what we thought was our tribal affilation (say, working-class) really isn't, at least not anymore? Maybe this is what the Britishes are always on about? I don't even know how to frame the question, but as I try to think about economic questions in the USA, I realize how I'm always thinking about how it'll affect the working class, & wondering whether great outcomes for them are necessarily great for me.
― Euler, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:07 (fifteen years ago)
You want us to post our yearly incomes, don't you.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:09 (fifteen years ago)
Will the tax cut extensions cause your taxes to go up, y or n
― dotting the i is really difficult for a skywriter (Z S), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:12 (fifteen years ago)
larison otm about obama's longterm game problems (and gollum's chicanery)
euler, i take your point about tribalism. not sure upthread what you meant though by "I don't see what you're bringing up as evidence that things have changed" -- i'm not clear what 'changed "things"' you think i'm trying to provide evidence for
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:16 (fifteen years ago)
My income is terrible right now (we qualify for S-CHIP and reduced price lunches), but despite that I live a jetsetting life on other people's tabs, so income isn't really the right measure. & my life is pretty great! Would an "eat the rich" politics be better for me? I dunno. & if the answer is "no", what should my politics be? I dunno, I feel like I'm arguing in bad faith sometimes.
xp kamerad I thought you were saying that in our new landscape, a positive economy in 2012 wouldn't help Obama, contrary to how things would've shaken out in the past, & I don't see why I should think that. Plus, aren't the Dems usually the ones people trust more on the economy acc. to polls, whereas the GOP gets points on national security?
― Euler, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:19 (fifteen years ago)
There's no way there's going to be a positive economy in 2012 no matter what's done.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
aren't the Dems usually the ones people trust more on the economy acc. to polls
Is that true?? Man..
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:35 (fifteen years ago)
euler, evidence = 6 gubernatorial net losses, 63 seats lost in the house, and 5 in the senate. yes 1) the economy still sucks 2) the electoral demographics for midterms are much different than they are for presidential elections and 3) the electorate is swinging wildly between election cycles. still, based on the historic losses last month, it's not a stretch to conclude that enough of the voting public buys the GOP line for one to worry a little about 2012. if i try really hard, i can imagine the economy starting to do pretty well going into 2012; but even then, obama might already a lost cause due to GOP messaging savvy continuing to dominate. months like the one he just had do not inspire confidence to the contrary. so far i've seen a white house that deserves larison's conclusion:
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:42 (fifteen years ago)
again WHO in the GOP will be able to a) secure the nomination and b) beat Obama. nobody.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:47 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
According to this particular poll, in mid-October 2010, Americans trusted Republicans more on health care by a margin of 7%
They trusted Republicans more on the economy by 10%
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)
anyone who thinks the liberal left will abandon the Dems (again, for who?) and let President Palin/Gingrich/Huckabee/Mittens in is talking crazy talk. they will come back. they have no other option - the odds that a credible third party threat from the left will arise that can split the Obama vote is close to nil.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)
Rasmussen always leans right, and were consistently wrong in 2008 and midterms.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
Well OK. And of course if you look at polls on specific policy issues, Americans tend to favor Democratic proposals
\_(;_;)_/
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
just checking in to say
Fuck you, Tom Emmer you weaselly piece of shit, good riddance :)
― EIEIoOoOO (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:50 (fifteen years ago)
A related point for me is Obama's "not everyone agrees with us" schtick. Exert a little more control over the terms of the debate and stop taking readings.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:51 (fifteen years ago)
anyway, guys, enjoy this free time: deej should be up soon.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:52 (fifteen years ago)
LOL MN - how delicious that after the Target donations to conservative homophobes, Minnesotans elected a Dayton.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
Obama's "not everyone agrees with us" schtick
i like this actually - clinton was the same - instead of telling the other side they were racist assholes or whatever (as maddow et al so love to do) they just say hey, we disagree about how to get where we want to go but here's why i think i'm right
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:10 (fifteen years ago)
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 10:53 AM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
dayton hasn't been connected to target in forever...there are no daytons on the board or serving as corporate officers in the target corp. currently.
also dayton criticized the decision:
http://www.queerty.com/mark-dayton-is-proud-of-what-target-was-not-necessarily-what-its-become-20100826/
what is your point?
― EIEIoOoOO (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:14 (fifteen years ago)
some key dayton votes, dude is rock solid
-Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
-Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
-Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
-Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
-Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
-Make college tuition fully tax deductible. (Nov 2000)
-40% more for special education; plus easier college loans. (Jul 2000)
-More funding for progressive public school programs. (Jul 1998)
-Vouchers undermine our educational system. (Nov 2000)
-Vouchers take precious tax dollars from public schools. (Jul 2000)
-Public schools are doing a good job; need more money. (Jul 1998)
-Supports charter schools, opposed to vouchers. (Jul 1998)
-Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
-Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
-Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
-Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
-Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
-Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
-Triple MN highway construction projects for next 10 years. (Jul 1998)
-Mass transit is an essential public service. (Jul 1998)
-Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
-Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
-No PAC money, no soft money. (Jul 2000)
-Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
-Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
-Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
-Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
-Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
-Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
-Immediate health care coverage for all Americans. (Nov 2000)
-Doctors decide, not HMOs or insurance companies. (Nov 2000)
-Employer-mandated coverage and universal insurance. (Nov 2000)
-Expand Medicare Rx coverage & other coverage. (Jul 2000)
-Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
― EIEIoOoOO (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:16 (fifteen years ago)
I'm assuming Dianne Feinstein's LOL comment about Biden's sales pitch made it into this chat?
anyone who thinks the liberal left will abandon the Dems (again, for who?)
My permanent answer to this now is Springsteen.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
you mean that guy who held concert rallies for Obama and will probably do so again
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, I mean if he gets smarter than you.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
dont think id be able to vote against springsteen tbh
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:32 (fifteen years ago)
also love the number of y'all who have a pretty good idea of what will be going on two years from now
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
in two years we're going to be voting for either obama, palin or new world leader hacker Julian Assange who will win because 4chan will hack america
― Mordy, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
well, I live in the future
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:36 (fifteen years ago)
what's life like in the caturdocracy?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:39 (fifteen years ago)
Murmurs! Imagine the volume after another year of surrenders...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08bai.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
?
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:48 (fifteen years ago)
And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-sorkin/sarah-palin-killing-animals_b_793600.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-sorkin/sarah-palin-killing-animals_b_793600.html
I suggest Obama hire this guy to do his speeches.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
The idea seems to have little momentum for now, not least because there isn’t an obvious candidate, and because such a challenge would seem to have about as much chance of success as, say, a reality show about David Hasselhoff.
what a shitty metaphor
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
lol, my dad was all about Horner
― BO (DJP), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:53 (fifteen years ago)
Matt Bai is a total hack
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:54 (fifteen years ago)
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, paused for eight seconds when asked what Mr. Biden’s main argument was in favor of the plan.
“I am really not sure what his main argument was,” Mrs. Feinstein said.
She added, “We have got this huge debt and deficit. We know it. This adds a trillion dollars to it. It’s a problem.”
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:55 (fifteen years ago)
xpostYeah, the existence of a reality show about David Hasselhoff wouldn't be surprising in the least.
― dotting the i is really difficult for a skywriter (Z S), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)
...
I hate to say this because it exposes exactly how much fucking terrible television my wife and I watch, but you guys know that there IS a reality show about Hasselhof and his family on A&E, right, and this is all just po-faced drollery?
― BO (DJP), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
Oh...no I didn't!
― dotting the i is really difficult for a skywriter (Z S), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:06 (fifteen years ago)
Man, that's not surprising in the least, gotta say
― dotting the i is really difficult for a skywriter (Z S), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:07 (fifteen years ago)
That simile (not a metaphor btw) actually isn't shitty at all; Hasselhof's show was panned by critics and did poorly in the ratings on its debut Sunday.
― BO (DJP), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:08 (fifteen years ago)
i thought u had to have "like" to make it a simile? damn you to hell for making me argue about this hahahaha
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
no, you're right
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
What makes it a shitty simile is the notion that a Hasselhoff reality show being in principle an unlikely success in an era when bullshit like "Dancing With the Stars" is water cooler television
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)
Only someone who doesn't know the current cachet of David Hasselhof in the tabloid world would say that.
You lucky, lucky person.
― BO (DJP), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:20 (fifteen years ago)
Just flat out: "the Republicans and Bush exacerbated the deficit crisis, it's time to bring things back under control."
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, December 8, 2010 7:00 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark
i would just like to point out that most americans do not know what the deficit is (or how it differs from our debt) & nor do they actually care about the deficit
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
nobody cares about the deficit!
I didn't understand the difference until five years ago.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
"deficits don't matter"
debt does tho
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:24 (fifteen years ago)
"the deficit" is just a word that republicans use pretty much to say "govt bureaucrats led by democrats are wasting your money" -- pointing out that tax cuts for the rich will add significantly to "the deficit" is not really going to convince anyone of anything, unfortunately
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:25 (fifteen years ago)
it's the same reason why 98% of americans couldn't tell you the difference b/w "earmarks" & "pork"
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
nah that one's easy. Pork is when it's your district, an earmark is when it's mine
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)
& yet the republicans can lead a major outrage over "earmarks" and paint themselves as crusaders against govt waste, even tho that's just fundamentally wrong
That David Stockman clip above is awesome, because he lays out so clearly why Republicans waving a magic wand at "earmarks" is so clearly a miniscule drop in the bucket, as is "reforming Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac" or any of of their other proposals for "eliminating the deficit." It's all just thrown-around buzzwords, which they do really, really well. They don't have any answers for anything.
― The animal magnetism of Tim Pawlenty (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
How do those that want a more forceful Obama feel about him calling the GOP "hostage takers" in his press conference yesterday
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:52 (fifteen years ago)
ha not sure i'd call that "forceful" as much as like, yelling an insult out of a car window - but it was pretty lol and he should do it more often, obv
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)
Cheney was right: "Ronald Reagan proved that the deficit doesn't matter."
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)
I thought his whole hostage analogy explained the situation pretty succinctly
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 18:59 (fifteen years ago)
How do those that want a more forceful Obama feel about him calling the GOP "hostage takers"
FUCK WORDS, SEARCH RESULTS
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)
I want Obama to be all "the Republicans are hostage takers and we don't negotiate with hostage takers - we begin bombing Boehner in five minutes."
Seriously, though, the current bizarro-world out of control narrative posits the Republicans as Washington outsiders back to rest control of the situation from interloper Obama, who of course was partially elected under the same pretense. He needs to find some better way to illustrate what is going on, because voters hear "hostage takers" as desperate hyperbole. Regardless, again, what is Obama going to do the next time benefits/stimulus funds expire? Call then hostage takers again? Because the economy sure as shit will not have improved by then, or at least not to any noticeable degree beyond a percentage point or two uptick.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 19:49 (fifteen years ago)
(Wrest control, that is)
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 19:50 (fifteen years ago)
According to the NYT, Biden, relying on years of friendship, pulled off the last-minute yeas from McConnell and his crew.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 19:58 (fifteen years ago)
Seriously, though, the current bizarro-world out of control narrative posits the Republicans as Washington outsiders back to rest control of the situation from interloper Obama, who of course was partially elected under the same pretense. He needs to find some better way to illustrate what is going on, because voters hear "hostage takers" as desperate hyperbole. Regardless, again, what is Obama going to do the next time benefits/stimulus funds expire?
okay if you're going to acknowledge that there is a bizarro narrative about what's going on in washington, then i think you also need to acknowledge that it might not be possible for obama to better illustrate what is actually going on, seeing as he actually has no control on this bizarro narrative that is hurting him so much
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:07 (fifteen years ago)
and this narrative is going to continue how long? until the friendly, bipartisan republicans lighten up? or until obama at least attempts to change it himself?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:23 (fifteen years ago)
sometimes you're like arguing w/ someone who crash landed on earth 8 months ago
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:25 (fifteen years ago)
dude i agree - to an extent - the narrative is in place. i disagree that he's powerless to change it, or that it's not worth trying. *shrugs*
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:28 (fifteen years ago)
i disagree that he hasn't tried to change it
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:29 (fifteen years ago)
the GQ article on gibbs pretty much makes it seem like it takes 100% of his willpower not to come to the podium one day and say "all of you are megalomaniac assholes that are as bad as your jobs as humanly possible and you are all ruining our country. fuck you guys and i'm out. gibbs."
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:31 (fifteen years ago)
The powerlessness of Democrats to change anything is their supporters' rationale for continuing to vote for them.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 1:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
are you guys gonna make up your minds on this one or
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw as i said yesterday if this is effectively raising taxes on poorest ppl to lower them for folks making around 100,000 then fuck this deal basically, seems like a pretty bad one -- although i dont know the answer as far as whether they ever expected to extend that lower income credit which was iirc part of the stimulus, and this reduction in SS taxes is a longer-term break for everyone, albeit a smaller one. but still, that seems like poor optics
im sure the economy will recover w/in the next few years, lol @ the chiken littles about that shit upthread -- like heres the thing, lower taxes does mean companies hire more -- this is actually true -- the problem with it isn't that its a lie but that its not nearly enough to combat the unbelievably shitty conditions of the american worker, but i dont question that employment will rise some what, the economy will recover (have you looked in the news? it already basically has) and etc
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
i cant believe you all went through another cycle of "If only Obama would get up there and say stuff!!" upthread.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)
do you think he hasnt been doing this? check your inboxes, hes been emailing you! in fact, he emailed me today to ask me to call mark kirk to get him to vote the right way on DADT today. so....
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
can we ban the word "optics"
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
obama snail mailed me a chalkboard
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:06 (fifteen years ago)
that's a lie, but i did get a card last night wishing me a happy holidays
xp well it was basically the same thing ppl have been saying since the election, and unfortunately yr stanning + the announced deal didn't do much to change ppls minds :/ lol liberals right
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
lower taxes does mean companies hire more
Marginal rates on personal income taxes have no effect on hiring. Which are the taxes we're discussing here.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
In fact I'll go so far as to say that "lower taxes does mean companies hire more" is pretty much baloney, unless you're on some roundabout trickle-down tip. Hiring is a demand-driven phenomenon, so to the extent that lower taxes maybe means more demand, sure, but it's so circuitous a route from A to B as to be ignorable.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
the lowered social sec. taxes on people across the board = more spending outright. and while taxes are 'going up' on people in lower income brackets (ppl that include me, btw) its because the stimulus bill is expiring -- those credits werent going to stick around regardless (obvi i think they should but cmon) so the tax rate is effectively lowered for lower income ppl too, if you recognize that credit as a temporary aspect of the stimulus bill
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
If the president had really fought for the Democratic position on this, if he’d given speeches around the country and gone on a whistlestop tour and hammered the Republicans and they just proved implacable on this, would the Democratic reaction be different if he made this same bill when the clock struck midnight on December, 31st?
I think a lot different. One of the things I give Nancy Pelosi a lot of credit for is that she’s able to get things passed and hold her members together because she shows us that she’s doing everything possible to get our views into these bills. I was a single-payer person, and I was disappointed in the health-care bill. But I supported the public option, and I watched as Nancy Pelosi fought and fought and fought to get the public option into the bill. But then it came back from the Senate without it. And I knew Pelosi had done every single thing she could possible do to get it in there. So I knew it was really the best we could get, and I had to decide whether to vote for it or not. And I think the president had the opportunity to do something similar here. This policy gets to a central question in economic policymaking, which is whether we’ll let the wealth transfer to the rich continue. And we should’ve engaged on it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/rep_peter_welch_we_dont_know_w.html
― max, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
In other news: Lisa Murkowski joins Scott Brown on board for repealing DADT.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:14 (fifteen years ago)
yes, so, exactly, communication would be the thing i think that needs improvement here.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:15 (fifteen years ago)
if obama had gone on a tour giving speeches around the country all the media would've focused on is how much michelle bachmann claimed it was going to cost the "american taxpayers"
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:17 (fifteen years ago)
So your view is that the policy isn’t the only deliverable here, that moving the ball forward on the economic philosophy shared by most Democrats should’ve been part of the deal, and the president didn’t do that.
Yes. The president had a chance to engage America. He had the bully pulpit. And in politics, it’s important to engage in fights where you really show the American people the differences. What could’ve been a better opportunity than this? The polls back him up, the House votes for his bill, the Senate votes for this bill and gets stopped by the filibuster, and the president could’ve pushed the Republicans into the glare of the light to defend their position by taking vote after vote after vote. But we didn’t do it.
One thing you hear some in the Senate argue is that if they just let the Republicans filibuster till December, 31st, there’d be no time to try and pass the START treaty or DADT repeal or the DREAM Act. What do you think of that argument?
I don’t think much of it. The central issue for this country and this party is jobs and the economy. That’s more important than anything else. To the extent we let anything get in our way on that, we undo our ability to succeed on all issues.
LOOK AT THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
provocative speech by james galbraith
The president deprived himself of any chance to develop a narrative from the beginning by surrounding himself with holdover appointments from the Bush and even the Clinton administrations: Secretary Geithner, Chairman Bernanke, and, since we're here at Harvard, I'll call him by his highest title, President Summers. These men have no commitment to the base, no commitment to the Democratic Party as a whole, no particular commitment to Barack Obama, and none to the broad objective of national economic recovery that can be detected from their actions.
With this team the president also chose to cover up economic crime. Not only has the greatest wave of financial fraud in our history gone largely uninvestigated and unpunished, the government and this administration with its stress tests (which were fakes), its relaxation of accounting standards, which permitted banks to hold toxic assets on their books at far higher prices than any investor would pay, with its failure to make criminal referrals where these were clearly warranted, with its continuation in office -- sometimes in acting capacities -- of some of the leading non-regulators of the earlier era, has continued an ongoing active complicity in financial fraud. And the perpetrators, of course, prospered as never before: reporting profits that they would not have been able to report under honest accounting standards and converting taxpayer support into bonuses; while at the same time cutting back savagely on loans to businesses and individuals, and ramping up foreclosures, much of that accomplished with forged documents and perjured affidavits.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html
― kamerad, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:19 (fifteen years ago)
the dadt vote is today, call your congressppl
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:19 (fifteen years ago)
all you dudes who were all "no timetable on DADT" better recognize the contradiction here
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)
It cracks me up that Scott Brown has used a promise to vote against the health care bill to put himself into a position to vote more liberally than half the Democrats in Congress.
― BO (DJP), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:22 (fifteen years ago)
Well, he is POTUS.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:25 (fifteen years ago)
I emailed Harry Reid two weeks ago about a DADT vote – the first time I've ever contacted anyone in the legislative branch.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)
-the contradiction exists solely because obama decided to appeal the ruling. so yes i know this is all due to "mistakes in the past", as i'm sure you'll point out, but maybe fewer past mistakes, like apealing dadt, wouldn't leave us in a position where we have to lose on taxes just to get dadt to a vote?-perhaps i'm wrong, but isn't dadt a part of the larger defense bill? what is repubs other option, no defense billat all?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:28 (fifteen years ago)
again i could be completely wrong about that defense package thing in which case ignore that point
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
add this to the list
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/maryland.plot/index.html?hpt=T2
Antonio Martinez, a Muslim convert who goes by the name Muhammad Hussain, was upset by U.S. forces killing "Muslim brothers and sisters" overseas. He was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to detonate an inert device supplied to him by an undercover FBI agent, according to court papers.
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
fbi having a great few weeks foiling their own plots
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 December 2010 21:39 (fifteen years ago)
OH MY GOD THIS IS GONNA BE SO FUN
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120805033.html
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 22:52 (fifteen years ago)
hahaa looks like someone is trying to get back in our good graces
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:18 (fifteen years ago)
but seriously, fucking awesome
not enough $$$ though obv
http://img.youtube.com/vi/98958txVSrE/0.jpg
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:19 (fifteen years ago)
Some Republicans have likened the black farmers program to "modern-day reparations"
as opposed to all those "old school reparations" that were handed out back in the day
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:22 (fifteen years ago)
just checked biggovernment for the hell of it:
1. Pigford bill heads to Obama's desk
2. Human Events: Pigford 'a vote-buying scheme... a fantastic theft of taxpayer money'...
3. ...'black farmers who really deserve a settlement were trampled'
4. CSM: Pigford justice or fraud?
5. Professor: Americans overlooking Pigford, more concerned about larger bailouts of corporate America
6. Rep. King calls for hearings on Pigford after GOP takes control of House
7. Michele Bachmann Hits Pigford on Laura Ingraham Show
8. USDA estimated no more than 2,000 Pigford claims would ultimately be filed...
9. ...94,000 claims filed to date
10. Vilsack not focused on firing or disciplining USDA employees who engaged in discrimination
11. USDA Denies Discrimination against Black Farmers But Pays Out $1.25 Billion Anyway
12. Riehl: Conservatives and Republicans should not to be cowed by threat of charges of racism
13. IBD: Reparations have begun...
14. ...'This is what happens when government rings the dinner bell'
― goole, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:26 (fifteen years ago)
ooh is dinner ready? what are we having
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:28 (fifteen years ago)
corn syrup
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:29 (fifteen years ago)
"12. Riehl: Conservatives and Republicans should not to be cowed by threat of charges of racism"
sad lol
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:33 (fifteen years ago)
I'm anticipating another amazing day in the life of Log Cabin Republicans.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:50 (fifteen years ago)
Susan Collins says she'll vote yes if they have 4 days of debate, so that should be 60 votes. What will she ask for in 4 days?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
The penis of men in reparative therapy.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:56 (fifteen years ago)
This is why there's currently no unemployment!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:19 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:35 (fifteen years ago)
Sen. Susan Collins lays out what she needs to allow DADT repeal to come to a vote. On its face, her demands can probably be met by Harry Reid without too much sweat. That's probably why Reid has now put off tonight's vote.
Now, you could argue that Reid just caved by putting off the vote, but I think that's the wrong read on this.
Collins has finally made her demands concrete and public. And they are not outrageous. At one point she wanted or was said to want two weeks of debate. Now she's asking for a manageable 4 days. Would we have gotten here anyway? Maybe. Did Reid's forcing the issue make the difference? Hard to say for sure, but probably.
This much is clear: the day started with DADT repeal looking completely dead and ends with a very plausible way forward to 60 votes in the Senate in this lame duck session. Not a done deal yet, but prospects for repeal are a whole lot better than they were 12 hours ago.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
damn, this is good news
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)
― wakafledia (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:45 PM
oh the cynicism of youth
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:52 (fifteen years ago)
Let's not start sucking each other's dicks yet.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:56 (fifteen years ago)
well at the very least don't tell anyone
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:57 (fifteen years ago)
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:19 PM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this is why youre terrible at arguing!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 01:14 (fifteen years ago)
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:56 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:57 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
do u think the teeth-clenched oooooh that obama! brigade will exhale for at least 10 seconds if dadt is repealed
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 01:15 (fifteen years ago)
We'll be too busy working on those dicks in our mouths.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 01:16 (fifteen years ago)
wait this bill is gonna make us all gay?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 December 2010 02:26 (fifteen years ago)
So this is our new stimulus package? Tax cuts and unemployment benefits?
What about the state and city governments that have been on life support for the past year via the stimulus? Is that gonna disappear?
― Virginia Plain, Thursday, 9 December 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)
yeah it's not repealed yet and i'd just like to point out that while it was still, and always will have been, a shitty thing to do at the time, appealing dadt also doubled as...bad politics! the ironing!! a major reason losing on tax cuts was necessary, as deej reminded us, was because we had to make sure there could be a vote on dadt - something that...wasn't necessary!
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 03:55 (fifteen years ago)
house passed the DREAM act, guys
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
if it passes in the senate & gets signed... well, that makes tax cuts easier to swallow, sorry
― k3vin k., Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:55 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
o rly
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:02 (fifteen years ago)
repealing dadt is obv a Good Thing but it could have been over 2 months ago and didn't have to muddy the tax debate. this is a challop?
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:04 (fifteen years ago)
imagine: DADT was.....bad politics too! Imagine the ironing!
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:06 (fifteen years ago)
sorry. This stuff is personal.
no, it wouldnt have been over 2 mo ago, it would have been a giant shitfest
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:09 (fifteen years ago)
glad we avoided that landslide defeat last month lol
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:11 (fifteen years ago)
hey k3v, i know youre trying to work some way out of sounding like a doof for giving me shit bcuz it looks like the DADT repeal might happen legislatively & you'll have to admit you were wrong, but if you twist yr back any further doing these contortions just remember to thank obama you have federally mandated health care
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:16 (fifteen years ago)
Nothing's happened yet, Beavis. Calm down.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:19 (fifteen years ago)
breitbart has been crowing about pigford on twitter for days now
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:24 (fifteen years ago)
god forbid black people get money from the government
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:25 (fifteen years ago)
a major reason losing on tax cuts was necessary, as deej reminded us, was because we had to make sure there could be a vote on dadt
Wait, I thought folding on serious environmental reform was to free up the political capital for DADT. I guess they lost that capital somewhere? Maybe someone left it in a limo.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:29 (fifteen years ago)
hey guys, its politics, the glass is always half empty. you might as well get used to it
its lol that the ppl who are quickest to accuse the president of being a wimp are apparently the ones who thought he was going to remake the universe in his image or some shit
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:31 (fifteen years ago)
just remember to thank obama you have federally mandated health care
Yes, thank god I can pay extra taxes because I haven't been able to afford health insurance.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:32 (fifteen years ago)
no shit
he ppl who are quickest to accuse the president of being a wimp are apparently the ones who thought he was going to remake the universe in his imagenice false binary
― kamerad, Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:37 (fifteen years ago)
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, December 9, 2010 4:32 AM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark
You don't fall into the hardship exemption?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:49 (fifteen years ago)
Maybe. What is that?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 December 2010 04:56 (fifteen years ago)
if your health insurance premiums would equal 8% or more of your income, you won't/shouldn't get hit with the penalty on your taxes. I'm sure you'll have to call HHS and do some paperwork.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 December 2010 05:17 (fifteen years ago)
i highly recommend that everyone turn on hannity right now to watch him & frank luntz's "focus group" on "obama's tax cut deal"
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 05:20 (fifteen years ago)
ooooooh michelle malkin coming up
oooooooooooooooooh and selma hayek admits that she was once an illegal!
tagline should be illegally HOT
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 December 2010 05:21 (fifteen years ago)
ready, willing & illegal
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 05:33 (fifteen years ago)
yo deej fwiw signing dadt repeal would be a huge accomplishment and i will give obama hella props and happily admit my prediction that congress wouldn't be able to pass it was wrong - i still disagree that appealing the decision was the right thing to do and there's literally nothing the could happen that would change my mind. all love
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 05:36 (fifteen years ago)
the ppl who are quickest to accuse the president of being a wimp are apparently the ones who thought he was going to remake the universe in his image or some shit
that's me for sure.
hey, remember when Gates was just gonna be a stopgap as secretary of defense? I bet those Nov'08-Jan '09 threads are lolzful.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 December 2010 12:36 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/08/2508047_house-vote-for-dream-act-thrills.html
Reading statements from Republicans about why they oppose the DREAM Act makes me so fucking furious.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:09 (fifteen years ago)
Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said: “It is not being cold-hearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is one dollar less that’s spent on our own children
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:12 (fifteen years ago)
On OUR OWN children.
Just to be clear, when she says "illegal immigrants" she's largely talking about people who have lived in the United States their entire lives. Poly-sci majors. Potential sergeants.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:14 (fifteen years ago)
People like Dana Rohrabacher need to be run out of politics, shamed in public, hounded by catcalls.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:15 (fifteen years ago)
dana's a dude fwiw
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 14:41 (fifteen years ago)
Reminds me of Seth Green's line in 'Radio Days'.
― Please fetishize responsibly (Michael White), Thursday, 9 December 2010 15:02 (fifteen years ago)
hahaha shows what I know.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 15:06 (fifteen years ago)
lower taxes does mean companies hire more -Deej
Have you been trying to ignore all the articles about companies making record profits, and taking advantage of tax loopholes and not hiring more workers?
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 December 2010 15:32 (fifteen years ago)
thats not sustainable tho
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:11 (fifteen years ago)
Like this one!
PROFITS ARE up, so it’s time to slash the workforce.That’s the story at State Street Corp., which recently announced the elimination of 1,400 jobs, including 400 in Massachusetts. Those jobs are gone, even though State Street last reported profits of $427 million, up about 20 percent from a year ago. Operating revenue also rose 8.4 percent .In an internal e-mail, chief executive Jay Hooley explained the strategy as necessary to “enhance service excellence and innovation’’ and drive “a stronger sense of urgency about getting things done.’’Those scary words reflect the new normal in corporate America.Since the US economy entered into recession at the end of 2007, jobs have been shed and wages frozen or cut. But, while wage and salary payments to workers declined by $121 billion or about 2 percent since the last quarter of 2008, pre-tax corporate profits rose sharply — up by $572 billion or 57 percent over the same time period, according to Andrew Sum, a professor of economics and director for the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. Productivity also increased, but workers got no reward — only unemployment insurance.“The extraordinary corporate profit share of income growth in the current recovery has no historical counterpart,’’ write Sum and research associate Joseph McLaughlin, in the current edition of Challenge Magazine. As a result, they note, “America’s workers might with justification claim, ‘We wuz robbed.’ ’’Instead of getting outraged over corporations that fire people even as they reel in cash, cable TV and talk radio hosts are choosing to get outraged over the inability of those fired to find new employment. Why not get angry at the CEOs, who instead of seeing increased resources to invest in hiring, only see rising expenses to be cut by firing? They share responsibility for a recovery that lags as job growth lags.By cutting loose 1,400 workers, State Street shifts the burden of keeping them solvent from the private sector to the public. Now, it’s the taxpayers’ job to underwrite them, via unemployment benefits.And that’s only the start of the ripple effect on a still-fragile economy. How many of the newly unemployed will no longer be able to pay their mortgages, or keep up with cable and credit card bills? Without employer-backed health insurance, how many will turn to state-subsidized insurance?While workers hit the streets, management hits the jackpot. According to Forbes.com, Hooley’s 2009 compensation package totaled $13.9 million. And that was before he took over as State Street’s CEO last March. Asked if management would be taking pay cuts or forgoing bonuses, Carolyn Cichon, a State Street spokesperson, said only that 2010 compensation, including executive incentive compensation, “will be determined in the first quarter of 2011.’’State Street was also able to tap into billions of dollars the US central bank made available in the fall of 2008 to avoid further financial chaos. The Fed can’t lend money directly to money markets. So it used 11 large banks, including State Street, as intermediaries. The banks used the Fed money to buy securities from money market funds, giving them cash to repay clients.As reported last week by The Globe, State Street bought $86 billion in investments from clients such as Eaton Vance Investment Managers, T. Rowe Price, and Columbia Funds. It held those investments until their maturity dates and earned $60 million in investment profits.All the Fed funds were repaid. Even so, that means State Street reaped the benefits of taxpayer-supplied money.“Where’s the fairness?’’ asks Lew Finfer, director of Massachusetts Community Action Network, a non-profit dedicated to the cause of social and economic justice. “If all the taxpayers helped your business continue to exist, don’t you have a responsibility back to maintain jobs, create jobs, and invest in communities? There would be an excuse if you’re losing money, but if you’re not losing money, where’s the excuse?’’Replies State Street’s Chichon: “. . . The industry as a whole is still undergoing significant headwinds and the competitive climate is fierce.’’That’s their excuse and they’re sticking to it. But, for the out of work, the climate is even fiercer.
That’s the story at State Street Corp., which recently announced the elimination of 1,400 jobs, including 400 in Massachusetts. Those jobs are gone, even though State Street last reported profits of $427 million, up about 20 percent from a year ago. Operating revenue also rose 8.4 percent .
In an internal e-mail, chief executive Jay Hooley explained the strategy as necessary to “enhance service excellence and innovation’’ and drive “a stronger sense of urgency about getting things done.’’
Those scary words reflect the new normal in corporate America.
Since the US economy entered into recession at the end of 2007, jobs have been shed and wages frozen or cut. But, while wage and salary payments to workers declined by $121 billion or about 2 percent since the last quarter of 2008, pre-tax corporate profits rose sharply — up by $572 billion or 57 percent over the same time period, according to Andrew Sum, a professor of economics and director for the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. Productivity also increased, but workers got no reward — only unemployment insurance.
“The extraordinary corporate profit share of income growth in the current recovery has no historical counterpart,’’ write Sum and research associate Joseph McLaughlin, in the current edition of Challenge Magazine. As a result, they note, “America’s workers might with justification claim, ‘We wuz robbed.’ ’’
Instead of getting outraged over corporations that fire people even as they reel in cash, cable TV and talk radio hosts are choosing to get outraged over the inability of those fired to find new employment. Why not get angry at the CEOs, who instead of seeing increased resources to invest in hiring, only see rising expenses to be cut by firing? They share responsibility for a recovery that lags as job growth lags.
By cutting loose 1,400 workers, State Street shifts the burden of keeping them solvent from the private sector to the public. Now, it’s the taxpayers’ job to underwrite them, via unemployment benefits.
And that’s only the start of the ripple effect on a still-fragile economy. How many of the newly unemployed will no longer be able to pay their mortgages, or keep up with cable and credit card bills? Without employer-backed health insurance, how many will turn to state-subsidized insurance?
While workers hit the streets, management hits the jackpot. According to Forbes.com, Hooley’s 2009 compensation package totaled $13.9 million. And that was before he took over as State Street’s CEO last March. Asked if management would be taking pay cuts or forgoing bonuses, Carolyn Cichon, a State Street spokesperson, said only that 2010 compensation, including executive incentive compensation, “will be determined in the first quarter of 2011.’’
State Street was also able to tap into billions of dollars the US central bank made available in the fall of 2008 to avoid further financial chaos. The Fed can’t lend money directly to money markets. So it used 11 large banks, including State Street, as intermediaries. The banks used the Fed money to buy securities from money market funds, giving them cash to repay clients.
As reported last week by The Globe, State Street bought $86 billion in investments from clients such as Eaton Vance Investment Managers, T. Rowe Price, and Columbia Funds. It held those investments until their maturity dates and earned $60 million in investment profits.
All the Fed funds were repaid. Even so, that means State Street reaped the benefits of taxpayer-supplied money.
“Where’s the fairness?’’ asks Lew Finfer, director of Massachusetts Community Action Network, a non-profit dedicated to the cause of social and economic justice. “If all the taxpayers helped your business continue to exist, don’t you have a responsibility back to maintain jobs, create jobs, and invest in communities? There would be an excuse if you’re losing money, but if you’re not losing money, where’s the excuse?’’
Replies State Street’s Chichon: “. . . The industry as a whole is still undergoing significant headwinds and the competitive climate is fierce.’’
That’s their excuse and they’re sticking to it. But, for the out of work, the climate is even fiercer.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:12 (fifteen years ago)
bcuz it looks like the DADT repeal might happen legislativel
Yeah good luck with that. President Susan Collins is being kind of an ass about it.
At this point, Sen. Susan Collins® of Maine, who claims to support repeal, appears to be the senator who stands in the way of success. On Friday, Collins had a lengthy meeting with Reid and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), trying to resolve her concerns and clear the way for passage. They didn’t reach an agreement.This was soon followed by President Obama reaching out to Collins directly over the weekend, urging her to do the right thing. They didn’t reach an agreement, either. This led to additional talks between Reid and Collins this morning.In a nutshell, Collins is asking Democratic leaders for unlimited debate on the defense bill. Reid, in turn, is offering Collins a compromise: votes on 10 separate amendments*, seven of which would come from Republicans, three of which would come from Democrats.Collins has responded that this isn’t good enough, and she’ll refuse to let the Senate vote up or down on the legislation.It’s worth emphasizing that Collins just isn’t being reasonable. Looking back over the last couple of decades, a total of 10 amendments is entirely routine for this defense authorization bill, and is actually far more than the number of amendments considered most of the time.
This was soon followed by President Obama reaching out to Collins directly over the weekend, urging her to do the right thing. They didn’t reach an agreement, either. This led to additional talks between Reid and Collins this morning.
In a nutshell, Collins is asking Democratic leaders for unlimited debate on the defense bill. Reid, in turn, is offering Collins a compromise: votes on 10 separate amendments*, seven of which would come from Republicans, three of which would come from Democrats.
Collins has responded that this isn’t good enough, and she’ll refuse to let the Senate vote up or down on the legislation.
It’s worth emphasizing that Collins just isn’t being reasonable. Looking back over the last couple of decades, a total of 10 amendments is entirely routine for this defense authorization bill, and is actually far more than the number of amendments considered most of the time.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:15 (fifteen years ago)
Thanks for the Globe link Phil - christ almighty
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:18 (fifteen years ago)
I'm....very cautiously, minimally optimistic. Four days of discussion instead of two weeks is much more reasonable.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:21 (fifteen years ago)
obv market adjustments were necessary, but if these guys want to continue having profits theyre gonna have to start making it rain on the workforce or no one will be buying
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:22 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, look, im in total favor of increased govt jobs & benefits for unemployed, but fact is, taxes do affect hiring & where companies are willing to locate .... state of IL just gave a big tax break to groupon to keep hiring in state, for ex
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:24 (fifteen years ago)
I have bad, bad news for you, deej: The people at the top of that food chain don't give a fuck whether demand improves or not. They're completely insulated from any potential ill effects of the recovery going awry, unemployment doesn't affect them, and they can frankly bail out of this economy anytime and go elsewhere without ever looking back.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:27 (fifteen years ago)
but fact is, taxes do affect hiring & where companies are willing to locate .... state of IL just gave a big tax break to groupon to keep hiring in state, for ex
lol causality. I think what you mean there is "threats to throw a shit fit and relocate affect taxes."
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:29 (fifteen years ago)
making them sound like jerks doesnt make what i said any less true
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
the fact is, to continue generating profits they'll have to expand. also, this shrunken workforce can only work more efficiently to a certain limit -- workers doing 2x as much work will burn out
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:33 (fifteen years ago)
China & India, dude. Potential future markets and potential future workforce!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:35 (fifteen years ago)
Yep. They don't need Americans to buy shit. There are 2 BILLION Chinese and Indians, plus related emerging consumer markets. Next to that, 300 million Americans is kid stuff.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:36 (fifteen years ago)
hey can frankly bail out of this economy anytime and go elsewhere without ever looking back.
I don't really understand this conclusion. where are they going to go, Mars?
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:37 (fifteen years ago)
oh damn, shouldn't have said that
― BO (DJP), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:38 (fifteen years ago)
like are you really pretending that China India and America's economies are not inextricably linked?
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:38 (fifteen years ago)
No, I'm saying that it's not like these dudes have to sit around here and watch things go all Mad Max. They can live wherever they want to.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)
The implication is that things are going to go kind of Mad Max everywhere these dudes would want to live.
― BO (DJP), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)
house dem caucus rejects the tax cut compromise
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:54 (fifteen years ago)
they are fighting 4 YOU
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:54 (fifteen years ago)
imo this is an issue of optics (srry) & once we've 'fought for it' we'll get something v similar to original dealotoh if the estate tax goes up im all for it
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:55 (fifteen years ago)
lol?
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:57 (fifteen years ago)
so if this doesn't pass the House (I'm not seeing this reported anywhere btw...? source?) that means all the cuts expire and then the GOP-controlled House will presumably pass the compromise when they convene next year. upshot being just a huge bureaucratic nightmare for the IRS...? or am I missing something.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:09 (fifteen years ago)
Nothing on WaPo or NYT yet.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
IRS can pass a temporary rule on witholding and it only becomes a nightmare if the compromise doesn't pass and everyone ends up having to pay more on their return.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
it didnt not pass the house, the caucus just voted to not bring it to a vote
source: like a million twitter accts
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/09/house-democrats-defy-obama-on-tax-cut-bill/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:13 (fifteen years ago)
http://ht.ly/3mCm0http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/09/131933043/house-democrats-refuse-to-take-up-tax-cut-deal?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterhttp://on.msnbc.com/eAQu1f
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:13 (fifteen years ago)
right, but well, same difference
thx
I only follow my friends' twitters cuz I hate the internet lol
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:15 (fifteen years ago)
just got a txt from obama saying theyre doing the dadt vote today .... what happened?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:16 (fifteen years ago)
what a time 2 be alive B-)
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:17 (fifteen years ago)
in: yoout: supin: dadt vote 2day can u txt me susan collins #
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:17 (fifteen years ago)
Not really. This was a purely symbolic vote by the caucus. Pelosi can still bring it up for a vote in the House, which she probably will do.
― Moodles, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:20 (fifteen years ago)
According to the CNN story, she's sticking with the caucus.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:21 (fifteen years ago)
Rp. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said: "They said take it or leave it. We left it."
He added the caucus resolution is technically not binding, but believes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "will follow the wishes of her caucus."
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)
Or, rather, one member of her caucus says she's sticking with them.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
which would prompt Reid to go forward with DADT, because now there's no reason to debate a tax cut bill that's not going to come to a vote...?
weird.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
she tweeted that she wants to "improve the proposal"
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said: "They said take it or leave it. We left it."
Had added the caucus resolution is technically not binding, but believes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "will follow the wishes of her caucus."
if you believe pete defazio... who knows. btw "had added", good job CNN
lol xps
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:23 (fifteen years ago)
I LOVE December.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
also the senate voted not to debate on the dream act
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:24 (fifteen years ago)
59 votes, not enough to do anything in this goddamn country
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
how is this even remotely feasible. GOP won't go for anything.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
i dunno man youre a bigger pelosi stan than me, u game it out
DREAM Act thing is disgusting, agreed. Remember when McCain wasn't a racist demogogue
It means, "I'm going to strangle DeFazio."
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:25 (fifteen years ago)
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)
I hope Pelosi knows what she's doing!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)
I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, but personally I can't really figure out what the endgame strategy is here
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)
No tax cuts unless all soldiers are exposed to gay sodomy.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
is this where everyone who was all WE CANT TAKE THAT RISK re: legislating the end of dadt is suddenly in favor of 'taking that risk' re: the tax codes
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:33 (fifteen years ago)
thought obama told you it was coming to a vote?
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:06 (fifteen years ago)
hope you guys are ready for some intelligent insider analysis here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&ref=us
Of all the questions swirling around President Obama in the wake of this week’s tax deal with Republicans, this one may matter most to his political future: Can he win back the center?
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:08 (fifteen years ago)
oh plz
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:09 (fifteen years ago)
Sheryl Gay Stolberg you are a traet
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:10 (fifteen years ago)
put her, Adam Nagourney, Matt Bai and "Kit" Seelye into the airlock and blast them into space plz
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
i find it kind of surprising (read: not at all surprising) that for such an immensely powerful but strangely routinely ignored political creature, "the centrist" doesn't have much of a biography. or taxonomy. who is this person?
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
socially kinda liberal, economically kinda conservative, drives minivan
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:14 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025166-503544.html
weiner more like WHINER right
Even if you accept that article's framework, surely the headline should read "Obama Winning Back Political Center"
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:16 (fifteen years ago)
And the lede should read
Of all the questions swirling around President Obama in the wake of this week’s tax deal with Republicans, he appears at leaat to be answering the most useless one: Can he gain ground among self-identified "independents"?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)
people who are notionally in the D or R camp, but differ on one or two signature issues?
people with a defined but non-aligned political philosophy (libertarians, eg)?
people who just don't want to be called partisan or extremist, whatever their opinions?
people who kinda don't give a fuck or think it's all worthless (both "high info voters" and not)?
rich people tom friedman talks shop with in airport lounges?
i mean, what
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:19 (fifteen years ago)
who is this person?
http://d28hgpri8am2if.cloudfront.net/book_images/cvr9780684853789_9780684853789.jpg
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:24 (fifteen years ago)
i link to this once every 8 months or so
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)
"the centrist" is a person who doesn't think about politics but isn't as naturally dumbass as yer knuckledragging righty
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
christ the GOP is filled with monsters
I mean just inhumane assholes the lot of them
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)
“Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11,” he said. “Yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and C.E.O.’s, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.”
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)
Hey, speaking of 9/11, remember when there was some big issue about a mosque, just before the elections? Boy, that went away fast, huh? Amazing.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
NEVER FORGET
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 19:34 (fifteen years ago)
Holder pushes for US trials for Gitmo detainees
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:21 (fifteen years ago)
"I've got a bunch of lines in the sand" is one byootiful quote from Bam
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:24 (fifteen years ago)
collins and reid debating dadt on the floor of the senate right now. could be its death.
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:30 (fifteen years ago)
:(
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:38 (fifteen years ago)
senatus: Reid praised Collins for working in good faith toward defense auth / DADT deal, but sounds like time just ran out.Twitter - 2 minutes ago
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
savages in the senate imo
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:39 (fifteen years ago)
fuccckk collinnnnnnns
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
i know we all hate horse race analysis but the deal seems to be
reid doesnt have the votes, even with collinscollins wants to vote for repeal but wont unless reid has the other votesreid wants to make collins the fall guycollins doesnt want to by the fall guy
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:40 (fifteen years ago)
how do they not have this
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:41 (fifteen years ago)
if Reid doesn't have the votes even with Collins why bring it to a vote at all? I don't get it
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:42 (fifteen years ago)
DCPlod: Around America, a chorus of boos was heard as John McCain's name was called by the clerk. #p2 #dadtTwitter - seconds ago
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
dunno i am just repeating what i heard elsewhere to sound smart
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
^^otm xp
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4-fAOkUFMZgF426PntCoUR9CuPtNbEVtnw7PXlt93fkJ7LqF6Ww
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)
president scott brown kills it off
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:50 (fifteen years ago)
fuck this
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:50 (fifteen years ago)
cant tell if i should be mad at collins and brown for being such humongous preening babies or at reid for not being a better babysitter
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
at some point you just have to clarify things by holding the damn vote
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
would prefer a babykiller in this particular scenario
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:52 (fifteen years ago)
can we just bombard those maniacs w/ phone calls? where are the #s for their offices. ughughgughgh
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
murkowski, manchin both no
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
2/3ds of this country supports repeal
Murkowski said she was for it the other day wtf
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)
3/4 of the country supports letting the tax cuts on the top two brackets expire. Where did that get us?
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)
Breaking News, Lisa Murkowski 'Probably" Votes Yes On DADTTechnorati - Tim Paynter - 22 hours agoKnown as Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), the law was passed during the Clinton Administration. It was the best Bill Clinton could do after running into steep ...
FUUUUUCK YOUUUUU
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
well even more importantly at least 60 senators have said publicly that they support repeal
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
Maine's moderate senators sabotaging DREAM Act, "don't ask, don't tell"Salon - Alex Pareene - 20 hours agoToday Olympia Snowe is killing the DREAM Act and Susan Collins is strongly considering blocking the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell. ...
FUUUUCK YOUUUUU
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
j/k
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:58 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvNBdSerHVU
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
whoa, collins voted yea
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, what? confusing right now
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:01 (fifteen years ago)
god damnit
xp wait wha
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
its still not enough votes though
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
lieberman apparently trying to convince murkowski to switch her vote
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)
love that guy
― k3vin k., Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
its over
― max, Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:06 (fifteen years ago)
a small minority of 57 senators voted to begin debate
Too bad the constitution says that a minimum of 60 votes is needed to so anything on earth
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
so glad that steadfast institution of moral righteousness, the Senate minority, is protecting the American homophobic minority's right to be discriminatory assholes. Democracy in action!
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:11 (fifteen years ago)
I wonder what the ramifications of this will be for the Justice Dept's legal strategy...
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
ie, will they reverse their position on appealing the federal court decision and just let it stand...? is that even possible?
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
The twenty seconds spent reading the thread updates define "rollercoaster."
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
word is theyre gonna try to attach dadt to the tax bill
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:14 (fifteen years ago)
lol...?
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:16 (fifteen years ago)
Collins, Reid and Lieberman had negotiated for more than week on an agreement that would allow Republicans to introduce up to 10 amendments to the bill, with Democrats adding up to five.
Collins agreed to the amendment count Wednesday, but held firm to a request for at least four days of debate on the bill and amendments. Reid rebuffed her request, citing the need to proceed with the tax and spending measures before the Senate's planned departure next weekend. from a W. Post blog
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
I don't think either Collins or Reid's accounts are to be taken at face value. Max OTM about them both trying to make the other the fall guy.
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
What a demoralizing, disgusting day
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said he supports repeal, but he voted for the filibuster.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she supports repeal, but she voted for the filibuster.
Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) said they were prepared (to) consider repeal, but they both voted for the filibuster.
from the Washington Monthly
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
^^^the real villains here
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
Cut them some slack - they needed a few more days to figure out if they were homophobic or not
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:06 (fifteen years ago)
Impeach President Scott Brown
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
plus the 30-some other Republicans and new Democrat Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia (he has said some idiotic things over the past few months on a variety of subjects btw so I'm not surprised) who also voted for the filibuster
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
well guys we'll always have the awesome healthcare bill right
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:13 (fifteen years ago)
Healthcare bill? Um, you must have missed the memo from Frank Lutz because we call that shit Obamacare around here iirc
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:16 (fifteen years ago)
So what now -- Lieberman and Collins bring it up as a separate bill and send it back to the House?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:18 (fifteen years ago)
what now is probably nothing.
the angry left could pressure obama/holder to stop fighting the legal challenges, we'll see how that goes
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)
oh shit it looks like you're right! wow
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:20 (fifteen years ago)
if it doesnt pass i cant see obama pushing the legal challenges -- its not like obama doesnt know it aint happening in the next 2 years
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:27 (fifteen years ago)
i know this goes against the SECRET CENTRIST! theory but yeah
i don't understand the differing politics of a standalone bill vs as a rider on defense. wouldn't the outcome be the same? wouldn't manchin for ex just go the same way? idgi
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:29 (fifteen years ago)
yeah me neither
a curse upon the arcane rules of the senate
― "Information by surprise" is even legal in Sweden (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:31 (fifteen years ago)
well it buys them more time to work out a deal
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:34 (fifteen years ago)
scott brown gets his old photo spread inserted into the preface of the army field manual
joe manchin gets to shoot an apple off of dr. steven chu's head
― goole, Thursday, 9 December 2010 22:37 (fifteen years ago)
"If it's take it or leave it, we'll leave it," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, after a closed-door meeting in which rank-and-file Democrats chanted, "Just say no."
The Dem caucus chants at their meetings
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)
The GOP was getting lonely, being the only party of no in town.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)
wonder what kind of cheers the GOP caucus chants at their meetings
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU
"Fuck the gays"?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6lyued1qHw
― benanas foster (Eric H.), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)
I dunno, sounds kinda gay
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:48 (fifteen years ago)
Especially when you're still fucking them in airport restrooms.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 00:48 (fifteen years ago)
Why do I think Collins will introduce a doomed-to-fail stand-alone bill so that she can cover her ass?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
she ended up voting yes though? the issue here is murkowski & scott brown
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 10 December 2010 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
well a cynic would note that she voted yes after it was clear that there weren't going to be enough votes
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 December 2010 01:48 (fifteen years ago)
ahh well shes an idiot however you slice it
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 10 December 2010 01:49 (fifteen years ago)
Then took a photo at the podium with Droopy and Mark Udall for her constituents.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 01:52 (fifteen years ago)
Uh I read something retarded in the newsflash in the elevator.. I guess in the new congress Rand Paul will head the committee on oversight of the Fed. Should be some lols when he just yells at people about the gold standard all day long.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 10 December 2010 02:31 (fifteen years ago)
so, with the caveat here that the above all the republicans should be blamed for just being homophobic assholes, did reid fuck up by pushing for a vote today? did he get betrayed by susan collins? both? (neither?)
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 December 2010 02:40 (fifteen years ago)
yeah the NYT had a spread showing GOP congressppl who were getting committees...p depressing xp
― k3vin k., Friday, 10 December 2010 02:40 (fifteen years ago)
did reid vote for it? if not, couldnt he just put it up for a re-vote later?
― k3vin k., Friday, 10 December 2010 02:42 (fifteen years ago)
Define "later."
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 02:52 (fifteen years ago)
http://speakout.barackobama.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=155&Source=FB
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 10 December 2010 04:49 (fifteen years ago)
How come when I put in my zip code it's showing me Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown?
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Friday, 10 December 2010 05:32 (fifteen years ago)
ha, me too!
well, they seem like appropriate people to send it to, so...
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Friday, 10 December 2010 05:34 (fifteen years ago)
haha, yeah I'd assume it's because your Senators are already yes votes?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 10 December 2010 05:35 (fifteen years ago)
plus Scott Brown represents all of us
oh yeah probably. Maybe those two are seen as potential swing votes? Although weird that they would just happen to both be the ones from Alaska.
Er, wait, is AK the earliest alphabetical state abbreviation?
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Friday, 10 December 2010 05:43 (fifteen years ago)
Scott Brown isn't from Alaska, he just has a pickup truck
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 10 December 2010 05:46 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/earth/10epa.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2
The Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations — new rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers — as it adjusts to a changed political dynamic in Washington with a more muscular Republican opposition.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 10 December 2010 15:32 (fifteen years ago)
sweet!
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 15:34 (fifteen years ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 10, 2010 12:46 AM Bookmark
Whoops, he sure isn't.
FWIW I don't think I've even ever heard the name Mark Begich before now.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Friday, 10 December 2010 15:43 (fifteen years ago)
Passenger rail funds from Wisc. and Ohio are being sent to other states. Thanks guv.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101210/us_time/08599203619700
― mc souleye (brownie), Friday, 10 December 2010 16:27 (fifteen years ago)
The Obama administration is retreating The Obama administration is retreating The Obama administration is retreating The Obama administration is retreating The Obama administration is retreating The Obama administration is retreating The Obama administration is retreating
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 December 2010 16:31 (fifteen years ago)
hey some actual good news
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 16:53 (fifteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, December 10, 2010 10:31 AM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
important line of context in this article: "the delays represent a marked departure from the first two years of the Obama presidency, when the EPA moved quickly to reverse one Bush environmental policy after another."
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 10 December 2010 17:04 (fifteen years ago)
still sucks, & the quotes from dudes at like 'third way' policy groups arent exactly inspiring
Hitch:
Most epochs are defined by one or another anxiety. More important, though, is the form which that anxiety takes. Millions of Americans are currently worried about two things that are, in their minds, emotionally related. The first of these is the prospect that white people will no longer be the majority in this country, and the second is that the United States will be just one among many world powers. This is by no means purely a “racial” matter. (In my experience, black Americans are quite concerned that “Hispanic” immigration will relegate them, too.) Having an honest and open discussion about all this is not just a high priority. It’s more like a matter of social and political survival. But the Beck-Skousen faction want to make such a debate impossible. They need and want to sublimate the anxiety into hysteria and paranoia. The president is a Kenyan. The president is a secret Muslim. The president (why not?—after all, every little bit helps) is the unacknowledged love child of Malcolm X. And this is their response to the election of an extremely moderate half-African American candidate, who speaks better English than most and who has a model family. Revolted by this development, huge numbers of white people choose to demonstrate their independence and superiority by putting themselves eagerly at the disposal of a tear-stained semi-literate shock jock, and by repeating his list of lies and defamations. But, of course, there’s nothing racial in their attitude …
As I started by saying, the people who really curl my lip are the ones who willingly accept such supporters for the sake of a Republican victory, and then try to write them off as not all that important, or not all that extreme, or not all that insane in wanting to repeal several amendments to a Constitution that they also think is unalterable because it’s divine!
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
source link?
― BO (DJP), Friday, 10 December 2010 17:54 (fifteen years ago)
Passenger rail funds from Wisc. and Ohio are being sent to other states. Thanks guv.http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101210/us_time/08599203619700― mc souleye (brownie), Friday, 10 December 2010 11:27 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― mc souleye (brownie), Friday, 10 December 2010 11:27 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Morocco and a whole bunch of other places will very soon have much better infrastructure than the US
http://www.railjournal.com/newsflash/morocco-signs-contract-with-alstom-for-high-speed-trains.html
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 10 December 2010 18:13 (fifteen years ago)
A link to that Hitchens essay.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 18:28 (fifteen years ago)
I don't understand how doing the right thing for 2 years provides any justification for doing the wrong thing now, especially when doing the wrong thing means delaying a rule that would prevent an estimated 1900 to 4800 premature deaths people each year, at a cost that is a fraction of the health benefits to society. It's funny how people get outraged over a bomb that kills 4 people instantaneously, but when something spewing out of a factory that could be prevented kills a couple thousand people each year, no one really gives a shit.
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Friday, 10 December 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
So sanders and landrieu are pulling some Mr. smith shit on cspan right now.
― Clay, Friday, 10 December 2010 18:44 (fifteen years ago)
& sherrod brown
― max, Friday, 10 December 2010 18:46 (fifteen years ago)
the old-school media coverage I saw this morning (Washington Post newspaper) and heard this morning (all news radio station) politely described the 2 Republican filibusters yesterday as merely bills the Senate did not pass or as Senate setbacks. grrrrrr.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 10 December 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)
<3 Sanders so fucking much right now
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Friday, 10 December 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)
It's funny how people get outraged over a bomb that kills 4 people instantaneously, but when something spewing out of a factory that could be prevented kills a couple thousand people each year, no one really gives a shit.
We're a country of notoriously whiny, craven idiots.
― Please fetishize responsibly (Michael White), Friday, 10 December 2010 19:31 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah sanders for president IMO
― Clay, Friday, 10 December 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)
x-post re EPA retreat- they apparently think retreating now will help with these 2 (quote below from the same NY Times article):
Still, the threats are looming. Representative Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is in line to become the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has made limiting E.P.A. authority one of his main objectives and has promised a steady round of hearings questioning the basis of agency actions.
Mr. Upton suggested recently that Ms. Jackson should be given her own parking place on Capitol Hill because she would be testifying so frequently in the coming year.
In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Upton called for the environmental agency to “stand down altogether” from the rules, which he said would “send a devastating economic shockwave coast to coast.”
Mr. Upton and Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate panel that oversees the E.P.A., followed up Thursday evening with a letter to Ms. Jackson in which they said they were “gravely concerned” about the direction the agency is taking. They vowed to conduct a thorough oversight investigation of the new rules.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 10 December 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)
Inhofe is a caveman fyi
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
An Obama administration strategy that's been proven RONG repeatedly: "maybe if we give in to the GOP before they even ask for anything, they won't be so mean later! be nice to us please"
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Friday, 10 December 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
better to ram these rules through now, I agree. cuz nothing's gonna come out of the EPA in the next couple years with Inhofe breathing down their neck.
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 20:59 (fifteen years ago)
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Friday, December 10, 2010 12:41 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
not saying its 'justification' btw, just adding needed ~context~
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:02 (fifteen years ago)
glad hitch is there to tell us what millions of americans are currently worried about.
― Thus Sang Freud, Friday, 10 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
Manchin booed
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
tom friedman also knows what millions of americans are worried about.
I think what is driving people’s pessimism today are two intersecting concerns. The long-term concern is that people intuitively understand that what we need most now is nation-building in America. They understand it by just looking around at our crumbling infrastructure, our sputtering job-creation engines and the latest international education test results that show our peers out-educating us, which means they will eventually out-compete us. Many people understand that we are slipping as a country and what they saw in Barack Obama, or what they projected onto him, was that he had both the vision and capability to pull America together behind a plan for nation-building at home.
But I think they understand something else: that we are facing a really serious moment. We have to get this plan for nation-building right because we are driving without a spare tire or a bumper. The bailouts and stimulus that we have administered to ourselves have left us without much cushion. There may be room, and even necessity, for a little more stimulus. But we have to get this moment right. We don’t get a do-over. If we fail to come together and invest, spend and cut really wisely, we’re heading for a fall—and if America becomes weak, your kids won’t just grow up in a different country, they will grow up in a different world.
― Thus Sang Freud, Friday, 10 December 2010 21:07 (fifteen years ago)
The long-term concern is that people intuitively understand that what we need most now is nation-building in America
people very clearly do NOT understand this
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:09 (fifteen years ago)
btw David Brooks has anointed Bam "a real-world liberal"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
having met Americans I tend to agree with hitch more than tom
― max, Friday, 10 December 2010 21:11 (fifteen years ago)
Wonder what Tommy F. thinks about that China-US deal to fuck up Copenhagen. Doesn't he think China should be our global warming role model?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 10 December 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
the real senate alignment situation
http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/The%20U.S%20Senate%20Alignment%20Chart.html
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)
<3 Bernie Sanders right now.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)
so Sanders-Feingold '12
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:31 (fifteen years ago)
Sanders is fun and all but we all know this is a symbolic gesture at best
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:33 (fifteen years ago)
(and a waste of time at worst)
can anyone find the 538 post where he runs down which senators are actually voting to the left/right of their district's ideological leanings & to what degrees? was mad informative imo
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:37 (fifteen years ago)
i bet my congressman (hinchey) would look pretty good on that
― k3vin k., Friday, 10 December 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)
Pelosi's batting avg gotta be pretty high for my district
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)
― max, Friday, 10 December 2010 23:37 (fifteen years ago)
http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/The%20U.S%20Senate%20Alignment%20Chart.jpg
^^ this is actually the only sane way to think abt the senate at this point, as a really shitty d&d campaign
i smell a meme
http://30fps.mocksession.com/2010%20December%2010%2018%2026%200.jpeg
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 December 2010 23:38 (fifteen years ago)
^^this is how whiney posts on ilm
― gimme schefter (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 December 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Friday, 10 December 2010 23:40 (fifteen years ago)
Glad we're not discussing Clinton's haggard, weary appearance at the podium today defending Obama.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 23:40 (fifteen years ago)
NYT seems to think it was exciting for some reason
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 December 2010 23:49 (fifteen years ago)
Apparently Bam walked away from the podium citing a Michelle appointment.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 December 2010 23:51 (fifteen years ago)
Hah, he totally had Clinton take over for a bit so he could get a little action.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 11 December 2010 00:05 (fifteen years ago)
Still cant believe that 9/11 Responders shit. It's sickening.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 11 December 2010 03:28 (fifteen years ago)
fwiw, which is very little, you can see me in pundit mode on this local political show, arguing about the stupidity of the tax deal. the "political roundtable part 1" segment. dude on my left is a nice local-populist guy who i like a lot but who mostly sounds off on local issues. guy on my right is a local talk-radio/political consultant blowhard who repeats republican talking points with great vigor. a lot of what he says here is flat lies, and i didn't challenge him on enough of it. my problem in this setting is a tendency to let other people make their point before i make mine, but by then they've used up all the time.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 12 December 2010 03:56 (fifteen years ago)
guys, I like Bernie Sanders, but he's not a socialist, he changed nothing on Friday, and the 15 mins I saw was pretty boring.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 12 December 2010 08:16 (fifteen years ago)
(also looking fwd to waking up tomw and watching tipsy)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 12 December 2010 08:18 (fifteen years ago)
The point of bloviators is to use up all the allotted time not letting others get a word in edgewise.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Sunday, 12 December 2010 08:39 (fifteen years ago)
Lefty petition for libs to hold Obama's feet to the fire:
http://protestobama.org/2010/12/09/4/
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 12 December 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld1ptk5AkY1qcb5fko1_r1_250.gif
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Sunday, 12 December 2010 21:36 (fifteen years ago)
Ladies and gentlemen, Mitch Albom:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101212/col01/12120491/1318/tax-cut-debate-is-missing-the-point&template=fullarticle
― Quesadilla Road Trip 2010 (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:36 (fifteen years ago)
The kids at the college newspaper I advise write better than this.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
That fucking video is being sent around on Facebook by my conservative relatives and 95% of them are swearing its real.
― one pretty obvious guy in the obvious (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:48 (fifteen years ago)
really awesome!
― Quesadilla Road Trip 2010 (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:56 (fifteen years ago)
I'm sure if I sent it to my dad and told him that the networks and radio aren't showing it because Obama threatened to kill anyone who covered the story, he would believe it in a heartbeat
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
^I wish I hadn't posted that xp...
― Quesadilla Road Trip 2010 (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
looking forward to learning why boehner cries so often on tonight's 60 minutes
― when you penetrate to the most high god, you will believe you're mad (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 00:27 (fifteen years ago)
haha what the left which obama was doing is what the right thinks he is doing
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 13 December 2010 00:38 (fifteen years ago)
um
what the left WISHES obama was doing is what the right thinks he is doing
kick in the door wavin the 4-4
like i dunno if a left or right political person made that
I think it was Jay Leno
― curmudgeon, Monday, 13 December 2010 02:17 (fifteen years ago)
well that answers that...
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 13 December 2010 02:27 (fifteen years ago)
one of TT's best in awhile.
http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/TMW2010-12-08colorlowres.jpg
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 December 2010 04:58 (fifteen years ago)
"and so I will force you to compromise--by giving you exactly what you want!"
loooooolgod, it hurts
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:01 (fifteen years ago)
he made some really good points in that comic that i have yet to hear anyone express -- what a vital voice in american politics
― ad hom alone (J0rdan S.), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:02 (fifteen years ago)
i could only imagine how morbs would castigate analysis that stale if only it didn't completely pander to his point of view
― ad hom alone (J0rdan S.), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:03 (fifteen years ago)
I <3 tom tomorrow, if only for his consistently awesome climate change toons
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:06 (fifteen years ago)
tombot tomorrow
― buzza, Monday, 13 December 2010 05:07 (fifteen years ago)
calling mitch mcconnell a turtle is even in the bottom percentage of mcconnell as animal burns
― ad hom alone (J0rdan S.), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:08 (fifteen years ago)
I like tom tomorrow but I was looking through his book recently and he really basically makes the same 3 jokes
― iatee, Monday, 13 December 2010 05:10 (fifteen years ago)
the stuff that morbs posts itt is the same stuff that any angry liberal talking head says on tv all the time, except in comic form -- must be a nice way to make a living but i don't see what the point of it is
unless you really dig comics?
― ad hom alone (J0rdan S.), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:13 (fifteen years ago)
i don't watch angry liberal talking heads on tv AND i really dig comics, so i guess i am a suckah
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:15 (fifteen years ago)
J0rd, youve been watching too much football mebbe
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 December 2010 05:25 (fifteen years ago)
SIR I BELIEVE YOUR COMIC FAILS TO REFLECT THE NUANCES INHERENT TO POLITICAL DEALINGS
― k3vin k., Monday, 13 December 2010 12:14 (fifteen years ago)
what can I say, the medium is the message sometimes. For me, Tom Tomorrow; for J0rdan, some dumbass rap couplet.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 December 2010 12:20 (fifteen years ago)
(Acknowleged satiric genius Jon Stewart often calls McConnell a turtle)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 December 2010 12:21 (fifteen years ago)
you're wailing on against rap now? you're really gonna be "that guy"?
― Babylon and zing (stevie), Monday, 13 December 2010 14:20 (fifteen years ago)
morbs has been that guy for a while
― o tannenbaum, o judge (crüt), Monday, 13 December 2010 14:22 (fifteen years ago)
Dennis Perrin will release a spoken-word album with Gil Scott-Heron iirc.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 14:24 (fifteen years ago)
loved the famous crying guy last night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh-IJc7a9CA&feature=player_embedded
― scott seward, Monday, 13 December 2010 14:52 (fifteen years ago)
kinda crazy that he can't even look at children without bursting into tears. must be hard to go through life like that cuz little kids are everywhere! does he wear special blinders in public?
― scott seward, Monday, 13 December 2010 14:55 (fifteen years ago)
http://cafecrem.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/crocodile-tear.jpg
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 14:55 (fifteen years ago)
I don't have time to read other ppl's mail
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 December 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)
child nutrition bill passes
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:05 (fifteen years ago)
GOP refuses to let Dems repeal policy that the GOP wants to repeal
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:18 (fifteen years ago)
^^^more quality governing
Democratic aides allege Republicans are stalling on repealing the unpopular measure for political benefit
Who would imagine they would do such a thing? Shocking.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 13 December 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/health-care-lawsuit-ruling_n_795807.html
A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.
this seems pretty specious. lol commerce clause.
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
like it's pretty easy to show how people not having insurance has a huge impact on interstate commerce
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:48 (fifteen years ago)
The only things that have ever been found not to affect interstate commerce are violence against women and having a gun near a school.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
The judge is a longtime Republican hack
― curmudgeon, Monday, 13 December 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
"horse and buggy conception" of the commerce clause = FDR.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:58 (fifteen years ago)
By ever, I mean in modern, still-applicable jurisprudence
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Monday, 13 December 2010 17:59 (fifteen years ago)
Judge Hudson’s financial disclosure forms show that from 2003 through 2008, Judge Hudson received “dividends” from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. A Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal).The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others. Another firm client is Kenneth Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.”
Plus
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008020044
― curmudgeon, Monday, 13 December 2010 18:06 (fifteen years ago)
(1) Doubt the VA atty general is actually personally handling the suit, (2) that's a little too attenuated to be a conflict of interest I think (what, Cuccinelli is going to increase the Campaign Solutions dividends to reward a judge for helping a client?) (3) it's pretty common for fed district judges to have political roots in the party that appoints them
just sayin
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Monday, 13 December 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the most terrifying phrases in English
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)
Good news at least:
By Robert Costa December 13, 2010 12:44 P.M. A vote on a standalone repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could “come later this week or early next — definitely during the lame duck,” a senior Senate aide tells National Review Online.
An attempt to repeal the measure as attached to a defense authorization bill failed last week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) rescinded on the terms of a compromise with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
Reid has promised Collins and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) a standalone vote on repeal before year’s end, via a special rule that would allow the measure to bypass the Senate’s committee process.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 19:09 (fifteen years ago)
'We are confident that the affordable care act will be upheld,' WH spokesman Robert Gibbs says about Va. court ruling on health care law
Nothin' to worry about, guys. The white house has this under control.
― Clay, Monday, 13 December 2010 19:26 (fifteen years ago)
who is also apparently totally unfamiliar with laws requiring drivers to buy car insurance
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 19:59 (fifteen years ago)
But those are state laws, different deal. Plus, you don't have to buy car insurance if you don't own a car.
I mean, I think the Commerce Clause probably applies here, but I've heard the car-insurance analogy from other people, and I don't think it works.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:31 (fifteen years ago)
You have to buy AT LEAST liability insurance if you're a licensed driver, whether you own a car or not.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:41 (fifteen years ago)
Huh? I have a license, don't own a car, and don't have any liability insurance. The liability insurance covers the automobile, not the driver, correct? In other words, every car is required to be covered by insurance - not every potential driver - so that no matter who is driving, the car is covered.
PA if I'm wrong on this please don't call the cops
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:53 (fifteen years ago)
**PS**
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:54 (fifteen years ago)
if you're driving a car, you need to have purchased liability insurance. so if you rented a car and were the driver, you would purchase insurance through the rental agency for the duration of your rental.
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
what if you don't own a body
― a cuter kind of annoying (latebloomer), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)
Tipsy has a point about the state thing if that's true - there's no federal car insurance law?
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 20:57 (fifteen years ago)
Not to turn this into the auto insurance thread, but what if you're borrowing someone else's car (that has insurance)? No one ever has mentioned it to me, but I'm supposed to buy insurance to cover the 1-3 times I end up driving each year?
(I'm going to jail aren't I)
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:00 (fifteen years ago)
In Florida, you pay to insure yourself to drive the car for which you pay annual tag fees.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:02 (fifteen years ago)
no, you don't, the insurance policy is on the car, not the driver. there's a policy holder who pays the bill and is the expected driver of the car, which is how the company computes your rates. at least i think that's how it works.
if you borrow money to buy the car, a lot of the time your bank will require insurance coverage -- if you total the car, they get the payout for the remainder of your loan.
― goole, Monday, 13 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
it may depend on the policy ZS -- i think that some policies will cover non-owner drivers. but i'm not sure, and that may depend on your state.
― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)
i mean, otherwise rental car companies would not exist -- who would drive a rental car if they knew that they'd get stuck with a huge bill if they got into an accident?
― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)
If you rent a car and waive the insurance purchase, you will indeed be on the hook if you get into an accident. It's not at all required that you purchase their insurance.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:06 (fifteen years ago)
In Soviet Union, car insures you!
― Son of Sisyphus of Reaganing (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
I mean, that's the choice when you rent: Either you pay for the insurance the rental co offers with the rental, or you carry your own insurance.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:08 (fifteen years ago)
I had a driver's license when I lived in NYC, but no car and no insurance. When I rented a car, I paid for the insurance. If you drive somebody else's car, you're covered under their insurance. (As long as they've given you permission to drive it.)
And no, there's no federal car insurance law. It's only relatively recent that all states even require it. When I moved to Tennessee in the mid-'90s, it was still optional.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:09 (fifteen years ago)
(Which sort of freaked me out. A state with no mandatory inspections and no mandatory insurance seemed like a bad combo.)
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:10 (fifteen years ago)
the 'required to insure' comparison btw cars and ppl works only on the surface i think.
car insurance is really only about an obligation to your future wrecked-up self only in the third place, if you feel like paying extra for it. your obligations to people you hit, and to the real owner of the vehicle (the bank) come first.
the health insurance relationship is much more closely about your obligation to your future (sick) self, and/or your family, and i guess that's the emotional reaction conservatives have to mandating it.
it's more distantly related to the rest of society, in that you shouldn't suck up resources like ER time if you could have been cared for more appropriately. and you should keep yourself in good health because your lost productivity and increased demand on doctors and drugs is bad for everyone else if you're unhealthy. but that kind of resource-allocation stuff is what gov't policy is for. or what 'the market' is for, if you like magical thinking...
― goole, Monday, 13 December 2010 21:11 (fifteen years ago)
Here's the relevant Ohio law:
Ohio’s financial responsibility (FR) law was enacted in October 1953. The FR law applies to owners and operators of Ohio registered vehicles, motorists leasing vehicles from licensed dealers and those applying for any type of drivers license, including a probationary license. The law states that “no person shall operate or permit the operation of a motor vehicle unless proof of financial responsibility is maintained with respect to that vehicle, or in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to his or her operation of that vehicle.”
So, yes, in Ohio, if you have an Ohio DL, you must either carry insurance or other proof of financial responsibility (e.g., if you can't get insurance at decent rates you can file a bond with the state).
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)
They were bound to find a judge crazy enough to rule against HCR. We'll see what the Supreme Court does I guess. Any idea when they'll take it up/rule on it?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 13 December 2010 21:13 (fifteen years ago)
Several years.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:14 (fifteen years ago)
yeah it's gonna be awhile
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:15 (fifteen years ago)
hard to say a) what the composition of the court will be at that time and b) how they'll rule anyway. I mean Scalia and Thomas will probably be against it but I dunno about everybody else
by "against it" I mean the requirement to insure
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:16 (fifteen years ago)
apparently they're 1-14 on these lawsuits so far, so I imagine the Scotus will agree with the 14 and not the 1.
But after Bush v. Gore I guess all bets are off.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 13 December 2010 21:16 (fifteen years ago)
Scalia will probably say "there is not one word in the Constitution about health insurance" or something similar
.........if you are driving a vehicle. Surely?
― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
Ginsberg will be the next justice to retire, but I bet she'll remain until or if Obama's re-elected.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:18 (fifteen years ago)
living in NJ just about all of my life -- and where car insurance has been mandatory for as long as i can remember -- i am amazed that anywhere allows uninsured drivers on the road.
as for the constitutionality of the individual mandate -- i'll defer to others with more knowledge of S. Ct. jurisprudence (Daniel?) -- but maybe the wingnuts were going for the circuit split & have something up their sleeve if it gets to the Supremes.
― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:42 (fifteen years ago)
I think they consider it implicit in the holding of a current driver's license; otherwise, if you aren't a driver, you can get a state-issued ID that's not a driver's license.
I just renewed my DL in November, and had to sign a standard form stating that I carried insurance or was otherwise financially responsible.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:48 (fifteen years ago)
How bizarre. Apparently it's impossible that might want to someday RENT a car, at which point you will pay a little extra to be insured by the RENTAL COMPANY (or you have a MasterCard and blah blah it's all taken care of) so you're getting a driver's license but you will not be driving anything, ever, on your own time.
― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)
my hatred for south carolina is extreme & unabated but for a bunch of reasons i keep getting the feeling that ohio is just a pisspoor excuse for a state
― goole, Monday, 13 December 2010 21:52 (fifteen years ago)
I mean I have a NDL just cos I was too lazy to deal with taking the NYC driving test, but I'd much rather have a real DL in case I ever want to use ZipCar! In which case I will PURCHASE THEIR INSURANCE FOR A NICE LOW RATE for the whole 4 hours I'm using the damn automobile.
I wonder what "otherwise financially responsible" means when it's at home.
― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:52 (fifteen years ago)
or was otherwise financially responsible.― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, December 13, 2010 3:48 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, December 13, 2010 3:48 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
this is the crucial bit, imo. i mean it basically states that you do NOT need to be insured to have a DL!
― kanellos (gbx), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)
ie - in holding a DL you are also stating that you are opening yrself to civil liability in the event of an accident. which makes sense, since you'll be driving a car, and they're dangerous.
i mean it basically states that you do NOT need to be insured to have a DL!
Well, it's not like they just take your word for it:
In Ohio, it is illegal to drive any motor vehicle without insurance or other financial responsibility (FR) proof. It is also illegal for any motor vehicle owner to allow anyone else to drive the owner's vehicle without FR proof.Section 4509.101 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits a individual from operating a motor vehicle in Ohio without maintaining proof of FR continuously throughout the registration period with respect to that vehicle, or, in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to that driver's operation of that vehicle. The law requires financial responsibility in the minimum amount of $12,500 for bodily injury to or death of one (1) individual in any one (1) accident, $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more individuals in any one (1) accident, and $7,500 for injury to the property of others in any one (1) accident.
Section 4509.101 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits a individual from operating a motor vehicle in Ohio without maintaining proof of FR continuously throughout the registration period with respect to that vehicle, or, in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to that driver's operation of that vehicle. The law requires financial responsibility in the minimum amount of $12,500 for bodily injury to or death of one (1) individual in any one (1) accident, $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more individuals in any one (1) accident, and $7,500 for injury to the property of others in any one (1) accident.
You can't just say, "Yeah, I'm good, no worries."
'd much rather have a real DL in case I ever want to use ZipCar!
IIRC insurance is included in the ZipCar membership fees/rental costs. I was a member when I lived in the DC area.
ohio is just a pisspoor excuse for a state
Pretty much.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 13 December 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)
i worked for a zipcar-alike in chicago and yeah: the insurance is covered in your fees. which is why i had to take ~4 cars to the body shop a day
― kanellos (gbx), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:00 (fifteen years ago)
WI did not require car insurance until the start of summer 2010
― dan m, Monday, 13 December 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)
you still have to pay a deductible if you crash your zipcar unless you pay extra fees up front though
― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:05 (fifteen years ago)
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, December 13, 2010 3:57 PM Bookmark
DING DING DING. This is the key thing that makes the healthcare law different under the COMMERCE CLAUSE, which is what this particular judge relied on. The discussion of car insurance is a red herring here.
Basically state govts, in theory, have wider powers than fed govt. Congress needs specific constitutional authorization (in a general sort of sense) to do something. The Commerce Clause has been found sufficient for Congress to do almost everything it wants to do with few exceptions, but you still have to show some kind of substantial effect on interstate commerce in order for congress to use that as a basis for regulation. Which you probably can do here, but that's why the existence of state car insurance laws are not precedent for the healthcare law (I mean they might be under other provisions but not under Commerce Clause).
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:13 (fifteen years ago)
okay okay but even so I would think it's pretty easy to demonstrate how the costs of the uninsured affect interstate commerce. 3/4ths of the economy and all that.
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:16 (fifteen years ago)
er 1/4 of the economy
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)
Probably yes.
I was actually surprised he used Commerce Clause -- I figured if anything would work it would be the Due Process clause (argument being that mandate improperly deprives you of a liberty/property interest). Not that I agree with that, but I think it's a stronger argument. Nothing remotely economic in nature ever gets struck down under Commerce Clause -- in fact almost nothing does period, as I said above.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:28 (fifteen years ago)
general rule re insurance & federal regulation is that under the mccarran-ferguson act federal pre-emption doesn't apply to insurance regulation and the states are free to regulate insurance companies as they see fit.
also, wingnuts have had a bug up their asses about Commerce Clause jurisprudence since FDR. and this judge looks like a wingnut in good standing.
― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
Unless you were one of the Four Horsemen.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)
I find this subset of the legal community that wants to revert to 80-year old theories of jurisprudence (and basically scrap all the intervening rulings/precedents) kinda fascinating. I mean, the courts have thrown out decades of precedent before, but never in order to RE-establish old, outdated legal doctrines.
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:37 (fifteen years ago)
Going back to pre-FDR Commerce Clause jurisprudence would wreak so much havoc on the country that we'd probably collapse. Not exaggerating.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
But I have never read -- you can correct me if I'm wrong, which I might be -- a 21st century conservative yearn for the days of Sutherland and McReynolds; I thought the general consensus was that their jurisprudence was "activism" of a different kind.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
it's similar to a bunch of lawyers deciding hey y'know what maybe slavery was a good idea
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:43 (fifteen years ago)
a 21st century conservative yearn for the days of Sutherland and McReynolds
Michelle Bachmann lol
I mean, aren't Lochner and so-called "liberty of contract" considered extra-constitutional interpretations, the type that would make Scalia and Thomas cringe?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)
btw Shakes: did you ever finish Supreme Power?
well this is a trend of two vague data points, but, you could see the nomination of someone like sharron angle as representative of a trend in the conservative movement: ever more fringey elements being brought into the fold. and you have glenn beck and others pushing a gnostic reading of US history where the enemy isn't just "the 60s" but goes back all the way to Teddy Roosevelt.
so yeah i guess i can see conservatives openly pushing for an early-20th century version of the US, that doesn't seem very out of character at all right now
― goole, Monday, 13 December 2010 22:49 (fifteen years ago)
well, if we're going to have Gilded Age economics/wealth distribution, then it's only fair that we have Gilded Age jurisprudence ...
― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)
But are Christian law schools even producing those kinds of lawyers?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:56 (fifteen years ago)
two other things, equally vaguely related: jonah goldberg's dipshit book and the larger effort to erase the memory of the democratic left as the force that fought totalitarianism, in favor of the idea that it's just another version of it.
and our media environment, with the city-based papers dying and the non-consensus world of the internet and cable filling the gap -- could be seen as a return of the 19th century in some ways
the really sick fusion of southern romanticism and libertarianism is a whole other weird thing but it's important too. i don't even know where to begin there.
xp no idea!
― goole, Monday, 13 December 2010 22:57 (fifteen years ago)
ha of course, quite awhile ago. great book. thanks for the recommendation!
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:58 (fifteen years ago)
and yes, Alfred, if i remember con. law correctly lochner et. al. are pretty commonly seen nowadays as "activist" (i vaguely recall some Oliver Wendell Holmes quote about how lochner-era judges were effectively reading herbert spencer/social darwinism into american jurisprudence). i would THINK that scalia/thomas/alito/roberts would nip @ the edges of the Commerce Clause but not throw an entire line of jurisprudence out the window like that (stare decisis and all that).
the other wingnut obsession is reading the Takings Clause expansively, which is how they try to gut environmental and land use laws (among other things). that predates Teabaggery by decades, though.
― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:58 (fifteen years ago)
can't wait til Palin comes out with her own pro-child labor argument (Trig needs to earn his keep!)
― fuckin magnates, why don't they work (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 December 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
They were bound to find a judge crazy enough to rule against HCR.
They didn't have to look far.
Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 02:18 (fifteen years ago)
god DAMN america!!!
― hot lava hair (Z S), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 02:40 (fifteen years ago)
Woah, dude should have recused himself if he had any professional ethics at all. I don't think that the SCOTUS is just going to ignore that conflict of interest when they finally get to the case. I mean, they tend to focus only on the merits, but I don't think something like that can or will be just handwaved away -- they really don't like it when a lower court is seen to be politically motivated (they're the only ones who get to do that, of course! ;P ).
― Without warning, a wizard walks by. (Viceroy), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:25 (fifteen years ago)
I'm curious as to how this judge (or anybody) rationalizes the idea that mandatory car insurance is okay, but mandatory health insurance is a pernicious abridgement of freedom. I guess most such people would prefer not having to have car insurance, either.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:29 (fifteen years ago)
we talked about this for about 75 posts upthread
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:37 (fifteen years ago)
Oops--I sort of dip in and out of this thread, but don't keep close tabs.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:38 (fifteen years ago)
House voting on DADT next Tuesday
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:35 (fifteen years ago)
oh Mittens
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:42 (fifteen years ago)
“Because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost,” Mr. Romney writes.
what the fuck are you even talking about
you mean all that investment and job growth of the last 6 years while these cuts have been in effect?
seriously want to stab him in the face
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:43 (fifteen years ago)
Give your opponent nothing, then loudly complain that he got too much.
Kinda brilliant.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:47 (fifteen years ago)
will wilkinson talks about peter orszag's new $2mil job:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/rigged_revolving_door
The classically liberal answer is to make government less powerful. The monstrous offspring of entangled markets and states can be defeated only by the most thorough possible separation. But public self-protection through market-state divorce can work only if libertarians are right that unfettered markets are not by nature unstable, that they do not lead to opressive concentrations of power, that we would do better without a central bank, and so on. Most of us don't believe that. Until more of us do, we're not going far in that direction. And maybe that's just as well. Maybe it's true that markets hum along smoothly only with relatively active government intervention and it's also true that relatively active government intervention is eventually inevitably co-opted, exacerbating rather than mitigating capitalism's injustices. Perhaps the best we can hope ever to achieve is a fleeting state of grace when fundamentally unstable forces are temporarily held in balance by an evanescent combination of complementary cultural currents. This is increasingly my fear: that there is no principled alternative to muddling through; that every ideologue's op-ed is wrong, except the ones serendipitously right. But muddle we must.
So what is to be done about the structural injustice spotlighted by Peter Orszag's passage through the revolving golden door? How exactly do we tweak the unjust structure? If the system is rigged, how exactly do we unrig it? In which direction can we muddle without making matters worse?
― goole, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:49 (fifteen years ago)
I understand the question, but I think the answer is usually pretty simple: go after the concentration of wealth, wherever it pops up, with whatever means work.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:01 (fifteen years ago)
(And that includes in the public sector, or in the golden revolving door he's talking about. Government service as a path to wealth is a hallmark of corruption everywhere, so when you start seeing people leave government for million-dollar jobs, that's a big flashing siren. Not that it's easy to attack, but I don't think there's much doubt about what you should try to do about it.)
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)
whoah Holbrooke's dead
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:08 (fifteen years ago)
there's a thread!
― goole, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)
A follow up to Shakes' post:
Washington — Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) tells NRO that a standalone ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal has enough votes to pass.
“We now have more than 60,” he says in an interview. With the House moving to proceed on such a measure today, Lieberman says the cause has “momentum.” He points out that behind the scenes, the bill has support from a handful of Republicans.
Lieberman adds that he’d like to see DADT brought up right after votes on the tax deal and the continuing resolution to fund the government — “before START,” he says.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)
Lieberman trying to shore up some Dem cred evidently
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
Justifying the future "Why does Obama still hate business?" narrative.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:37 (fifteen years ago)
Not really – more young men to feed Moloch and the war machine. Nothing's changed with Droopy.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)
but that's what Dems like! that's how Rachel Maddow gets away w/ mourning a tool like Holbrooke for half her show.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:46 (fifteen years ago)
Holbrooke knew how to give good copy.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:47 (fifteen years ago)
"Tonight we mourn one of our regular guests"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:51 (fifteen years ago)
http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/
ha
― goole, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 20:23 (fifteen years ago)
Nice.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 13:24 (fifteen years ago)
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/anchorbabyheadline.jpg
― goole, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 17:14 (fifteen years ago)
ugh, I thought this stuff was waning a little?
Republicans Make Good On Threat To Force Lame Duck Spending Showdown
Democrats will try to use the impending deadline to pass the omnibus. If it fails, they can take up a piece of legislation passed by the House known as a "continuing resolution," which will keep the government funded at current levels through next year.
Republican leaders reject both plans. They're demanding that Congress pass a short-term funding measure, which would expire early next year and give the incoming Republicans the power to cut spending significantly.
"The government runs out of money this Saturday," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned this morning on the Senate floor. "Congress should pass a short-term CR immediately."
...Some Republican appropriators and others are expected to support the (omnibus) legislation. But vulnerable, and anti-earmark, Democrats are expected to defect, and it's unclear whether the legislation -- which was once expected to pass handily -- can muster the 60 votes it will need to overcome a filibuster.
"There are 23 Democrats who are up in 2012, who I think are -- and I know Senator McCaskill is one of them -- whose said she's going to vote against it," Cornyn told me. "Part of the reason we're doing this is to raise the attention of the American people and let them know what's happening so they can express their outrage."
can't wait to hear American people express their outrage, I'm sure some reasonable thinking will be on display
― hot lava hair (Z S), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)
whats old is new again
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 19:15 (fifteen years ago)
pay up, bitches
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 20:17 (fifteen years ago)
whoa nice
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 15 December 2010 20:25 (fifteen years ago)
I imagine the criminal charges will be harder to make stick, but the civil charges will = $$$
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)
i have to imagine the families of the victims of the explosion will also be suing? or is that already in progress?
― *plop*timist (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)
House repeals DADT - on to the Senate, where Droopy claims he has 67 votes
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 22:38 (fifteen years ago)
WOOT (holds breath).
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
START treaty also going up for a vote in the Senate tomorrow
― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 22:41 (fifteen years ago)
Dan Choi has been sectioned. Poor guy.
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 22:47 (fifteen years ago)
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to overturn the ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers serving in the U.S. military, passing legislation repealing the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The bill—a so-called “standalone” measure not tied to any other legislative items—passed 250 to 175 in a virtual party-line vote. It now advances to the Senate.
Fuk u GOP House contingent, I hope you all die in a fire. All of you, in one large conflagration.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
this guy is a goddamned idiot
I thought you had to be smart to make it through law school
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 December 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)
Oh no not broccoli!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:35 (fifteen years ago)
is there a better metaphor for the modern GOP than a child in a highchair screaming "you can't make me eat my vegetables!"
― return of the nakh (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:38 (fifteen years ago)
and now you get to substitute "child in a highchair" with "actual judge in a courtroom"
Started in this man's administration iirc
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50588057.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A140FF88D406DE732617DC830BA91C4B00E7A2549ECBB9C90F3B01E70F2B3269972
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:39 (fifteen years ago)
I bet you wouldn't call her a man to her face
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:42 (fifteen years ago)
Not only don't you have to be smart to make it through law school, you don't have to have gone to law school to be appointed to the bench.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 December 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)
Look who's excited about Obama again.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 13:39 (fourteen years ago)
With friends like Krauthammer...
Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 17 December 2010 14:06 (fourteen years ago)
gee couldn't be hard to dig up very different statements from Dr. K from within 6mos
― goole, Friday, 17 December 2010 14:51 (fourteen years ago)
He's the one who praised Bam for having a first-class intellect AND temperament. These guys love power.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 14:53 (fourteen years ago)
And now re Obama's temperament he says:
But don't be fooled by defensive style or thin-skinned temperament. The president is a very smart man. How smart? His comeback is already a year ahead of Clinton's
― curmudgeon, Friday, 17 December 2010 18:02 (fourteen years ago)
would like to take a hammer to Krauthammer
so how excited are we about this bipartisanship on display today? totally awesome America, amirite?
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:29 (fourteen years ago)
Such disjunction. The Beltway loves this bill (and the other Bill).
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:31 (fourteen years ago)
it's like the opposite of a compromise
― goole, Friday, 17 December 2010 19:33 (fourteen years ago)
rip gabbneb
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:33 (fourteen years ago)
everybody got everything they wanted and someone else has to pay for all of it! a compromise is two people showing up for a duel and agreeing to shoot each on in the leg. this is agreeing to both shoot someone else.
― goole, Friday, 17 December 2010 19:34 (fourteen years ago)
Every time I see Krauthammer's name it makes me think of my dad and the well-known dad's trope "I'll hammer your Kraut!"
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:37 (fourteen years ago)
a compromise is two people showing up for a duel and agreeing to shoot each on in the leg. this is agreeing to both shoot someone else.
lol this is the best description I've seen so far
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:40 (fourteen years ago)
haha yeah that's amazing
― k3vin k., Friday, 17 December 2010 19:43 (fourteen years ago)
Even O'Reilly seems confused:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC8FMRNIcEA
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:43 (fourteen years ago)
btw you guys better get ready when deej enters and says, "We got unemployment benefits extended -- that's not a loss!"
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:47 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ middle class internet personality alfred soto willing to throw away unemployment benefits in defense of 'principles'
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:50 (fourteen years ago)
and there you have it
― goole, Friday, 17 December 2010 19:51 (fourteen years ago)
this is all a bunch of positioning -- obama negotiated a compromise that may or may not have been the best he could do, everyone on ilx / the left assumes he did a terrible job because the republicans got something out of it, world keeps turning
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:51 (fourteen years ago)
that isn't my assumption at all
― goole, Friday, 17 December 2010 19:52 (fourteen years ago)
i dont mean EVERYONE
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Friday, 17 December 2010 19:59 (fourteen years ago)
wondering how alfred is going to spin dadt overturn as being a 'loss'
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Friday, 17 December 2010 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
I don't give a damn if the Republicans got a "victory." I'm not Howard Fineman.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
If the Senate repeals DADT this weekend, commentators will look back and say that the tax bill created the "momentum" for it. Since "momentum" is one of those intangibles that baffles historians, it's impossible to know.
But, like I said ad nauseum last week, if Obama had insisted that extending unemployment was unnegotiable, he had a sizable percentage of the Dem caucus to support him. At that point it would've been much easier to explain what's up to the country.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 20:03 (fourteen years ago)
But whatever -- I'm done with arguing about tax cuts.
http://www.moviemobsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/childcatcher1.jpg
^^^Krauthammer
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 December 2010 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
the dem caucus was grandstanding to fix the white house's obvious communications problems ... obama didnt do a good job of making the compromise seem like a 'fight' so the dems in congress had to get outraged
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Friday, 17 December 2010 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
soooo looks like START is falling apart
― max, Friday, 17 December 2010 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
APART
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
more like DON'T START
― max, Friday, 17 December 2010 21:11 (fourteen years ago)
BELIEVIN'
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 December 2010 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
http://i55.tinypic.com/2z83vgp.gif, "An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/28/drudge-siren.gifAMERICA: SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW THINGShttp://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/28/drudge-siren.gif
http://i54.tinypic.com/sxerh1.jpghttp://i54.tinypic.com/10i5a8i.jpghttp://i51.tinypic.com/2061tdx.jpghttp://i54.tinypic.com/o07y3c.jpg
(n=616, margin of error = +/- 3.9%)
Americans in not knowing stuff shocker. But the more interesting part of the poll is in the breakdown of the results by news source (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR/PBS, network news, newspaper) and how often people rely on those news sources (never, rarely, once a week, 2-3 times a week, almost daily). Not surprisingly, those Fox's core audience is significantly more ignorant:
Furthermore, those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that: -* most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) -* most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) -* the economy is getting worse (26 points) -* most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) -* the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) -* their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) -* the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) -* when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) -* and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points) These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
-* most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) -* most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) -* the economy is getting worse (26 points) -* most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) -* the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) -* their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) -* the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) -* when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) -* and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
(envirofascist blagging focused on climate change/fox aspect of poll is here)
http://i55.tinypic.com/f9o7x2.jpg
― hot lava hair (Z S), Friday, 17 December 2010 21:26 (fourteen years ago)
laughing my ass off re: Murkowski being the new swing vote in the Senate. way to go Sarah Palin.
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 December 2010 22:30 (fourteen years ago)
big day today
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 December 2010 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
DREAM looks dead, Murkowski voting to bring it onto the floor, but Collins, Snowe and Brown all voting no…
― carson dial, Saturday, 18 December 2010 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
god that sucks
― max, Saturday, 18 December 2010 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
And my Senator to be, Kay Hagan voted against it coming to the floor. Burr, I can understand, but jesus, we went to all that trouble to oust Dole and that's what we get?
― carson dial, Saturday, 18 December 2010 16:43 (fourteen years ago)
DADT cloture vote, 63-33
― hot lava hair (Z S), Saturday, 18 December 2010 16:49 (fourteen years ago)
fuck the senate
good about dadt tho
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 December 2010 17:20 (fourteen years ago)
This Congress saved its worst day ever for Friday, way to finish strong
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:49 (fourteen years ago)
i actually cannot believe this shit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/house-republicans-block-child-marriage-prevention-act_n_798382.html
― the mighty blowjob: "it's just lunch" basically (the table is the table), Saturday, 18 December 2010 20:13 (fourteen years ago)
DADT repealed in senate, 65-31. The cloture vote was 63-33...just curious, who are the two senators that were willing to vote to prevent the bill from ever reaching a final vote, but not willing to go down in history as being a homophobe on the final vote itself?
― hot lava hair (Z S), Saturday, 18 December 2010 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
I think Burr (R-NC) was one!
― carson dial, Saturday, 18 December 2010 20:46 (fourteen years ago)
jeez i've never seen collins speak before
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 December 2010 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
yes, how the hell is she a successful politician with that voice?
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 18 December 2010 20:57 (fourteen years ago)
I'm guessing President Obama won't get much credit here, but I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he contested that court decision a couple of months ago (or however long it was). At the cost of a slightly longer wait, DADT has been overturned by the legislature rather than the courts. Presumably it is now gone for good, which would not have been the case if a court decision were still hanging in the air.
― clemenza, Saturday, 18 December 2010 20:59 (fourteen years ago)
oh god
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 December 2010 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
they never had the votes for the dream act fwiw
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Saturday, 18 December 2010 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
Sullivan more or less makes the same point. So I assume your derision extends to him, too.
― clemenza, Saturday, 18 December 2010 22:38 (fourteen years ago)
Yay! Now gay people can go fight in wars people who wanted gay people to be allowed to fight in don't want us to fight. Belated step forward, regardless, I guess. Can the 2011 nu-congress just change its mind and reverse this in a month?
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:13 (fourteen years ago)
pretty sure the 50+ returning Dems in the Senate won't be changing their minds in a month, Josh.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:27 (fourteen years ago)
think he was kidding
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:31 (fourteen years ago)
Five Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the bill. They were Democratic Senators Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jon Tester of Montana.
fuck these useless pieces of shit
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:33 (fourteen years ago)
Where was the Lesbian From South Carolina?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:51 (fourteen years ago)
“I am very disappointed such a major policy change was jammed through the lame duck Congress without the ability to offer one single amendment,” said Graham. “Apparently, the concerns of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who indicated repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ under these conditions would affect battlefield preparedness potentially leading to increased risk of casualties, were ignored.”
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:13 (fourteen years ago)
In otherwards, blah blah blah, dog whistles to a bunch of old veterans (like, say, McCain) who are now terrified that maybe some of their best buddies in the service were gay and have nothing better to do than self-loathe. As it were.
Glad this stupid, stupid policy is finally being put to bed -- a key moment in the extended death agonies of a Falwell-damaged generation. (Pissed he's not around to see it but at least Dobson will stew.)
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:26 (fourteen years ago)
Those dogs have rabies and can't hear the whistles anymore.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:26 (fourteen years ago)
note to bad guys, it turns out our tough-as-fuck marines have an achilles' heel after all, it's called "gayness."
― illiterate and hateful, as expected (reddening), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:29 (fourteen years ago)
a friend of mine on facebook with military experience posted this (and elicited a quite lengthy response from me, which is so duh obvious I won't even bother dispensing it here).
I respect the guy, he's intelligent in general, but the opinion below, had it come from any other person, woulda made me go bugeyed:
"Homosexual individuals have always been allowed to serve their country if they so choose... they were simply asked to keep it to themselves on-base. There is a lot of public misconception of this policy; no offense, but civilians simply do...n't have the context to understand why it was put into place.
The quick version is, it existed for the same reason that women don't shower with men at the YMCA - because most people would not be very comfortable sharing showering or dressing space with coworkers who are sexually attracted to their gender. In addition, DADT also served the purpose of protecting homosexual service members from the sad fact that bigotry still exists out there. Cases occur every year of gay servicemembers being attacked, even beaten by people in their own unit.
I very much support gay rights and equality for people regardless of sexual lifestyle, and I *hope* that this will be a positive change, but don't be surprised if this ends up having a lot more backlash than anyone with zero concept of military life might anticipate"
o_O
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:33 (fourteen years ago)
has he responded?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:34 (fourteen years ago)
the three takeaways:
1. DADT is good cuz straight guyz don't like gays looking at their bum, which of course they'll be doing anyway, but not openly2. Gay people get beat up by bigots, so gay people should either not serve or keep quiet, for their own safety. Disciplinary action against the bigots in question is too confrontational.3. DADT protects gays from themselves.
bah
xpost nah but I'm sure he's not gonna be uber mad about it as I was polite. I also happen to know gays and transexuals that have served in teh military myself who might take offense at his stance.
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:36 (fourteen years ago)
He was probably too busy planning his shower trips to respond, really.
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:37 (fourteen years ago)
his stance eh
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:38 (fourteen years ago)
Ned, what does your dad think?
One of the more pernicious parts of DADT is that women who rejected the advances of male colleagues were often accused of being lesbians.
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:38 (fourteen years ago)
ahh, the old boy's club that is the military....
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:40 (fourteen years ago)
I'll be interested in discussing this with my dad over the holidays -- I don't believe I've ever done so all these years. Considering his own slow but strong shift towards a greater acceptance -- I still remember him saying something fairly homophobic around the time I had a gay roommate 19 years back which shocked me because it was so rare and of character for him, whereas now he's a firm though not fiery supporter of marriage equality, for instance -- I will be intrigued as to his take.
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:40 (fourteen years ago)
Should be "rare and OUT of character" obv.
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:43 (fourteen years ago)
The comments are fun reading.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:44 (fourteen years ago)
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:38 PM Bookmark
Somehow I doubt that this is a product of DADT.
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:46 (fourteen years ago)
A defense of Joe Lieberman.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:47 (fourteen years ago)
well, it would be in the sense that because you couldn't openly serve as a homosexual, it became a lot easier to shoehorn all women who resisted your advances as lesbians because they obviously couldn't tell you why they couldn't resist your intimidating hunk of manmeat...
...whereas, under the current policy, that strategy is less successful.
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:48 (fourteen years ago)
The showering thing is just dumb. I shower at the gym all the time and just by the odds there's a good chance on any given day some gay guy sees my bum. What difference would it make to me if I knew WHICH guy it was? I mean as long as he's not leering at me who gives a fuck?
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:48 (fourteen years ago)
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:48 PM Bookmark
Don't really buy this. So now because you can openly serve, the same asshole who used to accuse women who resisted of being lesbians will think "well if she were a lesbian she'd just tell me, so that must not be it!"
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:50 (fourteen years ago)
xpost i flashed my cock in front of a live audience during five different performances of a Fringe Festival show in front of audiences who were probably 60% gay. who gives a shit, it's body parts.
Besides...even if it was a significant enough issue that needed addressing, is the best course of solution banning open homosexuality? and not uh making other arrangements?
I will say the point about bigotry/beatings offended me. "yes, we have record that gays are being beaten and harassed -- our solution, now nobody in the military can say they're gay!"
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:52 (fourteen years ago)
I mean as long as he's not leering at me who gives a fuck?
― mandatorily joined parties (Hurting 2), Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:48 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Don't you get it? ALL GAYS LEER AT OTHER DUDES ALL THE TIME DO U C
― a penis with a man hanging from (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:52 (fourteen years ago)
well yea that's the other thing, the excessive focus on the 'sexual' part of the sexual preference. ie, another part of the theatre background is often you change in unisex dressing rooms, yet I probably couldn't tell you the color of any of my co-female actors underwear because we're adults, we get changed and move on...just like TAKING A MUTHAFUCKING SHOWER. GRRRRR
― Bitch, it cold outside!!! BURR (San Te), Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:54 (fourteen years ago)
Now that this is done, is Lieberman officially used up and useless? Does he have anything else to offer as a traditional democrat? What's left? An emergency abortion bulwark, should it ever come to that?
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
we don't know but we better keep him happy just in case
― k3vin k., Sunday, 19 December 2010 00:59 (fourteen years ago)
cool. maybe they'll legalize marijuana now too
― kamerad, Sunday, 19 December 2010 02:02 (fourteen years ago)
I caught the end of Biden on Meet the Press this morning. (Just as he was finished dodging around on the wars.) He makes me nervous. As he launched into an animated response on his role in getting legislation passed, I'm sure I wasn't along in blurting out, "You're doing fine, Joe--STOP NOW AND DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD! LEAVE THE STUDIO! NOW!"
― clemenza, Sunday, 19 December 2010 14:33 (fourteen years ago)
why does he make you nervous?
― k3vin k., Sunday, 19 December 2010 15:55 (fourteen years ago)
Well, he's got a habit--a 30-year history--of saying exactly what he's thinking, without filtering it for public consumption. After which, problems ensue. (I'm not on here much, but a reminder: I'm an Obama fan/apologist.)
― clemenza, Sunday, 19 December 2010 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
thankfully nobody cares about meet the press
― return of the nakh (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 19 December 2010 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
Roffle:
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501318
The bitter whine of someone who has nothing left to stand on.
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 19 December 2010 19:32 (fourteen years ago)
such a charming snapshot of fear and prejudice and hate chewing up a soulhttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5275081652_1c6745a612.jpg
― this guy ☜ (stevie), Sunday, 19 December 2010 19:58 (fourteen years ago)
I am kinda waiting for some types to create "straight militias" now.
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
And Republicans did not just stand around and watch as our military was shredded before their very eyes, they helped it happen. Shame on them all. The one hope America has left is to elect Republican leaders at all levels, including the presidency, who will be determined to reinstate the ban on homosexuals in the military in 2013.
The one hope America has left is to elect Republican leaders at all levels, including the presidency, who will be determined to reinstate the ban on homosexuals in the military in 2013.
Yes, the one hope is to elect the people that helped shred your military before your very eyes.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
LOLOLOL militias are full of muscular latent heterodammit types longing to break free IMO, good luck with that...
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:12 (fourteen years ago)
― clemenza, Sunday, 19 December 2010 16:10 (4 hours ago)
I think Biden's gaffes don't really hurt him or the Obama administration that much. The media generally treats him as a lovable goof.
And some of them, like "the big fucking deal" moment, might have been good politics.
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:50 (fourteen years ago)
The media treats many insidious hacks as lovable goofs
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
funny how that works. Al Gore didn't even have gaffes, so the media had to invent them and then rip him apart for them.
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:56 (fourteen years ago)
Gore wasn't insidious, he was a clomping lampshade-on-his-head hack
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 19 December 2010 20:59 (fourteen years ago)
no no much worse-- he was boring.
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 19 December 2010 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
I think you're basically right, and sometimes I find him endearing too. But you just never know when he's going to wander into no-man's territory. I was dreading something like this: "Sure the left's livid with us right now over the tax bill, but hey--the centre eats up this bi-partisan schtick like free candy, so we're good to go."
― clemenza, Sunday, 19 December 2010 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
― k3vin k., Saturday, December 18, 2010 6:59 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
your lack of self awareness is amazing
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:37 (fourteen years ago)
you do realize if we had listened to all the STRIP HIM OF HIS CHAIR shit back then, this wouldnt have passed now
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:38 (fourteen years ago)
its sorta like going FUCK JOHN TESTER!!! for voting against DADT -- the fact that it passed by such a margin LET him vote against it to protect him at home ... dude was running as a D in a longtime R state. If he was going around voting party line all the time he would have zero chance at reelection & we would have even less of a chance of passing bills thru the senate
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:39 (fourteen years ago)
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Sunday, December 19, 2010 5:38 PM (9 minutes ago)
he did a good thing - doesn't make up for his bullshit career. you gonna root for his re-election in 2012?
― k3vin k., Sunday, 19 December 2010 22:52 (fourteen years ago)
No, he will be thrown under the bus.
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Sunday, 19 December 2010 23:04 (fourteen years ago)
If it's him or a Democrat to the left of him, I'd want him to lose. If it's him or a Republican to the right of him, I'd want him to win.
― clemenza, Sunday, 19 December 2010 23:06 (fourteen years ago)
soooo... prospects for Start passing? seems kinda hard to tell at the moment
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 December 2010 03:44 (fourteen years ago)
Lots of nonsense today concerning Kyl, McCain, and McConnell. But Kerry and Richard Lugar on "This Week" were unusually confident.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 20 December 2010 03:47 (fourteen years ago)
it's dick lugar, alfred. dick.
― return of the nakh (J0rdan S.), Monday, 20 December 2010 03:48 (fourteen years ago)
Right. Lick Dugar.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 20 December 2010 04:04 (fourteen years ago)
lol um isn't there something deeply unconstitutional about this?
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 December 2010 17:43 (fourteen years ago)
well I mean it's an amendment so it isn't LITERALLY unconstitutional but it just seems to run counter to the very nature of the Constitution itself, like um isn't this the kind of thing that made the first US gov't completely ineffectual (cf the Federalist Papers)
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 December 2010 17:45 (fourteen years ago)
Your liberal media at work:
Still, the idea that the health care legislation was unconstitutional was dismissed as a fringe argument just six months ago — but last week, a federal judge agreed with that argument.
Yeah, and 14 other federal judges have said, "Uh, no."
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 20 December 2010 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
its sorta like going FUCK JOHN TESTER!!! for voting against DADT -- the fact that it passed by such a margin LET him vote against it to protect him at home ... dude was running as a D in a longtime R state. If he was going around voting party line all the time he would have zero chance at reelection & we would have even less of a chance of passing bills thru the senate― *plop*ism rules (deej), Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:39 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:39 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
enh, this kinda pragmatism is icky to me, but i guess that's why i hate politics. and besides, tester is still a farmer from montana, so i wouldn't be surprised if his 'no' vote wasn't some canny political maneuvering but instead an accurate reflection of his values (or that he's got some twisted idea that DADT is actually good for homosexuals, a la San Te's military friend's POV).
also, while montana might be a red meat state that's inclined to vote for guns and w/e, it's also, well, literally a red meat state with a dying ranching industry that i'm pretty sure relies on the sorta farm subsidies that dems tend to go for more than republicans.
― kanellos (gbx), Monday, 20 December 2010 18:00 (fourteen years ago)
let me remind Tester that conservatives supported the repeal of DADT by a fairly large margin.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 20 December 2010 18:08 (fourteen years ago)
i mean yeah im not saying if i was in his position id be able to justify doing the same but having that large a margin on this bill meant that D's could avoid taking some easy risks & still have the same impact
― *plop*ism rules (deej), Monday, 20 December 2010 18:21 (fourteen years ago)
omg
http://cofcc.org/2010/12/marval-studios-declares-war-on-norse-mythology/
omg omg omg omg
― goole, Monday, 20 December 2010 20:59 (fourteen years ago)
It seems that Marvel Studios believes that white people should have nothing that is unique to themselves. An upcoming movie, based on the comic book Thor, will give Norse mythology an insulting multi-cultural make-over. One of the Gods will be played by Hip Hop DJ Idris Elba.
yeah yeah should have revived a wire thread i know
ahahahahaha
― horseshoe, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
feels more like an nro thread link but it is hilarious wherever
did we have a thread on that "every black person in entertainment gets credited as a 'rapper'" meme?
― goole, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
insulting multi-cultural makeoverinsulting multi-cultural makeoverinsulting multi-cultural makeoverinsulting multi-cultural makeoverinsulting multi-cultural makeoverinsulting multi-cultural makeoverinsulting multi-cultural makeover
― horseshoe, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
idris elba should always be credited as a stone fox tbh
― horseshoe, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:02 (fourteen years ago)
http://boycott-thor.com/
― goole, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
almost feel like these people are kind of onto something? i can see how norse mythology is kind of a refuge for creepy unexamined white supremacist tendencies, and now Marvel has to go and ruin it for everyone.
― horseshoe, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
I love this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooMvgOHBvQk&feature=player_embedded
― I Am Kurious Assange (polyphonic), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
i scanned that tpm piece as saying they cast elba as thor. i watched the trailer waiting for the reveal that never came.
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:16 (fourteen years ago)
Love this woman:
‘What Does This Mean for the Gay Marriage Debate?’December 20, 2010 3:54 P.M.By Maggie Gallagher
Everyone is asking me: What does DADT repeal mean for the gay-marriage debate? I will tell you: I don’t know.
I’ve always believed that marriage is a distinctive issue, that it cannot simply be folded into “gay issues” generally, that it’s quite possible to be pro–gay rights generally and still to support marriage as the union of husband and wife.
However, the inability of those who opposed DADT repeal to kill this bill in the lame duck, even in light of the strong opposition to repeal from troops in the field, is an example of the growing mismatch in culture power — the power to name reality, the power to determine which stories get told and whose feelings count.
When the 58 percent of Marines putting their lives on the line for this country who say “this is going to make our life harder” have so little weight in public debate — compared with, say, the understandably opposing feelings of Lt. Dan Choi and other gay soldiers — it’s certainly culturally significant.
Back to marriage: Same-sex and opposite-sex couples clearly are not similarly situated with respect to marriage. Will we find enough people willing to stand on the commonsense proposition that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because these unions really are unique — and uniquely related to the common good?
I think so. I can’t really believe we are going to end up like Europe. But then I’m an optimist.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
Douthat, compromised, embattled:
In a sense, of course, there's no better time to be a Christian than the first 25 days of December. But this is also the season when American Christians can feel most embattled. Their piety is overshadowed by material ticky-tack. Their great feast is compromised by Christmuskkwanzaa multiculturalism.
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
almost feel like these people are kind of onto something? i can see how norse mythology is kind of a refuge for creepy unexamined white supremacist tendencies, and now Marvel has to go and ruin it for everyone.― horseshoe, Monday, December 20, 2010 3:09 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
― horseshoe, Monday, December 20, 2010 3:09 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
well they're only "onto something" inasmuch as, duh, Heimdall wasn't a black guy. casting idris elba is a way to get a stone fox into the role, and ~shake things up~ precisely because he isn't norse. what's double-hilarious though is that white supremacists are aghast that a movie that is based on a comic book isn't slavishly faithful to the fucking eddas or w/e. cuz i'm pretty sure they never mention thor's work with the avengers or his clashes with the incredible hulk and shit.
― kanellos (gbx), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
I just nuked Christmas btw
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
huge lolz @ "Their great feast"
i know it's boring and rote to mention the whole pagan ish but srsly i know even devout christians that are like 'well yeah the timing IS pretty curious' but you know god works in mysterious ways, etc.
― kanellos (gbx), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
quick someone dig up that faction that the puritans hated christmas
― goole, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
i just nuked ross doubthat btw
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
That great Christian piety trounces materialism during the rest of the year, shame it's not that way during xmas time…loooooool
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 20 December 2010 21:34 (fourteen years ago)
"that faction"?? meant factoid. whoops.
― goole, Monday, 20 December 2010 21:36 (fourteen years ago)
This fucking country:
I just needed to tell someone what happened at the Chester County Ballet production of the Nutcracker. Yes, I know I live in rightwingville but did you know that the Nutcracker now has the songs “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” in it?At the end of the first act, a lovely ballerina comes out and dances to God Bless America, in the middle of a Russian ballet!!! Then the end is Barbra Streisand singing America the Beautiful with the whole company dancing in red, white and blue costumes.
At the end of the first act, a lovely ballerina comes out and dances to God Bless America, in the middle of a Russian ballet!!! Then the end is Barbra Streisand singing America the Beautiful with the whole company dancing in red, white and blue costumes.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Monday, 20 December 2010 22:54 (fourteen years ago)
I keep hearing people say that Xmas is the the holiest Xtian holiday. Wtf, ppl? Hello, Easter!
― Please fetishize responsibly (Michael White), Monday, 20 December 2010 23:25 (fourteen years ago)
O_O O_O O_O O_O O_O O_OO_O O_O O_O O_O O_O O_OO_O O_O O_O O_O O_O O_OO_O O_O O_O O_O O_O O_O@ Phil D's anecdote, holy shit.
How did others in the audience react?
― hot lava hair (Z S), Monday, 20 December 2010 23:49 (fourteen years ago)
Every play should have God Bless America in it.
― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Monday, 20 December 2010 23:53 (fourteen years ago)
The fact that it's Streisand is a nice touch, btw.
― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Monday, 20 December 2010 23:54 (fourteen years ago)
ZS, from the rest of the blog post:
I was really taken aback. The worst part was no one, I mean no one, cared.
― penis with a man hanging from it (Leee), Monday, 20 December 2010 23:56 (fourteen years ago)
I read somewhere that Christ's actual birthday was February 28th, so...
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 07:58 (fourteen years ago)
Nope, the pope said you were wrong about 1700 years ago, and that's final
― hot lava hair (Z S), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 13:13 (fourteen years ago)
Someone should put on a Nutcracker featuring the Call To Prayer just for LOLz.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 13:14 (fourteen years ago)
I'm not sure I'm buying this is the end of Ernst & Young, but this is interesting news. (my first visit to "americablog" so w/e on the site itself but it has some good links)
http://www.americablog.com/2010/12/taibbi-on-fall-of-ernst-young.html
― Sniffin' 2: Electric Elmers Glue (brownie), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:24 (fourteen years ago)
So not buying that...
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:34 (fourteen years ago)
prediction- see KPMG: big fine, re-invention of brand, hire golfer to wear your logo, profit.
― Sniffin' 2: Electric Elmers Glue (brownie), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:37 (fourteen years ago)
Wow -- looks like GOP opposition to New START is collapsing. Obama may get as many as 70+ senators to support it. One dismayed Corner commenter:
Does anyone have the sense that this, and the DADT repeal, was quid pro quo for the tax compromise? Could the whole episode be political theater?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:49 (fourteen years ago)
Christians who believe that Jesus was born on "Dec 25" -- well, c'mon, that's a pretty dumbass subset. No more than a third.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:52 (fourteen years ago)
Hard-of-thinking Christians - not that small a subset TBF.
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:53 (fourteen years ago)
sort of like liberals who believe that a prez more left than Obama is an absolute impossibility
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:53 (fourteen years ago)
waka waka waka
― goole, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:56 (fourteen years ago)
Hard-of-thinking homo sapiens - not that small a subset TBF
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:01 (fourteen years ago)
Thank you, Alfred, for my second big laugh of the day. (See the Christmas song poll for the first.)
― Tina Tina Cheneuse (DJP), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:02 (fourteen years ago)
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/164023_10150112125958092_555078091_7566090_2162261_n.jpg
― goole, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:03 (fourteen years ago)
"Soldier, have you had your gay shower yet?""But, sir...""DOUBLE-TIME, soldier! And I want to see some soap dropped!"
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:38 (fourteen years ago)
wouldn't said theater be directed from the top-down in the Senate - ie, from McConnell and the relevant committee chairmen? Seems weird that they can't hold their caucus together on this. not sure what's going on tbh
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
don't get me wrong this is obviously quid pro quo, I just don't see what the advantage is for McConnell to grandstand against START, it's not exactly a position that will endear him to the base or anything.
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:43 (fourteen years ago)
Mr. Alexander, who represents Tennessee and is chairman of the Republican Conference, said the treaty would not inhibit missile defense and that the United States would be left with enough nuclear firepower “to blow anyone to kingdom come.”
christ the GOP and their apocalpytic fantasies...
Are you kidding? The base HATES the treaty: we're selling out our security to the Russians.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:44 (fourteen years ago)
A good response to GOP objections.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:45 (fourteen years ago)
news to me! START was Reagan's baby!
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:00 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah but we get to go in and inspect all their shit... That kinda thing has very wide popular support.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:03 (fourteen years ago)
I don't think the conservative base really knows whats in this treaty...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
^^^this was my other suspicion. this seems like a pretty arcane and complex thing for them to get uppity about
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:07 (fourteen years ago)
ok LOL
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=330029&
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:15 (fourteen years ago)
hahahahahaha
― Tina Tina Cheneuse (DJP), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:16 (fourteen years ago)
"In the Senate this morning, the Senate Democratic Communications Center has put a one-page flier on every reporter's chair."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/21/democrats-on-start-nya-nya-nya-nya.aspx
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:19 (fourteen years ago)
not to get too morbsy here, but the top group has a pretty high body count compared to the opposition...
― goole, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:20 (fourteen years ago)
That flier format should be used for every contentious bill from now on.
― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:23 (fourteen years ago)
i mean, if your skin doesn't crawl at the DSCC using kissinger's mug in favor of something
― goole, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:25 (fourteen years ago)
and the guy has gotten fuglier with age.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
Dems crowing about how their on the side of GHWB and Kissinger et al is pretty lol
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:29 (fourteen years ago)
you're totally otm goole, but i have to admit to being a little glad that dems are going cold-blooded offense mode on this one.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, really. The GOP senators look kinda stunned at how hardball Obama and Harry Reid have become.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:32 (fourteen years ago)
all the grandstanding GOP bullshit re START has been particularly loathsome. like, i know you've guys have stated in no uncertain terms that you want Obama to fail, but you're willing to risk this?
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:33 (fourteen years ago)
you guys = GOP
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:34 (fourteen years ago)
& obv START failure doesn;t necessarily = Obama failure, but you know
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
Congressional power surge in South and West via census results:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us/22census.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:16 (fourteen years ago)
Great, can never have enough Texas loonies in Washington.
― He stayed true to what he is. Now he murders deer! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:19 (fourteen years ago)
eh hard to predict who will get elected out of this. as the article notes, a lot of this growth is driven by Hispanics, and guess how they trend
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:20 (fourteen years ago)
catholic?
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:21 (fourteen years ago)
Theyre not as reliably dem as other minorities but if the gop keeps trying to actively piss them off like they have been recently (dream act, etc) that could change.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:59 (fourteen years ago)
?? Cubans excepted they seem pretty reliable to me. GOP anti-immigrant race-baiting isn't gonna abate or do them any favors.
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:01 (fourteen years ago)
I just love how Rove and Bush tried to court the latinos as if they werent the party of minutemen and cracking skulls on the border.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:23 (fourteen years ago)
Bush's border policies were one of the few times Bush risked alienating his party...
I had a Mexican-American friend who came from the Latino part of Detroit; she told me that Bush was delivering speeches in fluent Spanish and that a lot of the people she knew were very impressed...
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
Jeb Bush remains enormously popular here in Florida.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
she told me that Bush was delivering speeches in fluent Spanish
seeing as how Bush couldn't deliver fluent speeches in his native tongue this seems pretty unlikely. did she mean Jeb?
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:47 (fourteen years ago)
I'd think so -- Jeb really does speak excellent Spanish.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:50 (fourteen years ago)
it's been so long that perhaps I got it mixed up, but I believe she was talking about Dubya...
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:55 (fourteen years ago)
George speaks Spanish but not as fluently as Jeb.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
hey i haven't dipped into this thread in months but can some of you smart guys come explain shit to me here:Court Says F.C.C. Cannot Require ‘Net Neutrality’
― u aint messin w/ my dengue (gr8080), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
i don't really know what to think about that tbh. everything i've read makes me inclined to be pro-net neutrality.
― goole, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
well yeah me too obv, but from what i gather this shit that passed today is kind of toothless?
― u aint messin w/ my dengue (gr8080), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
its "good" cause it locks in nn for wired and "bad" because it give telecoms a foot in the door for wireless--which is likely to be the kind of internet were all using in a few decades
― max, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 20:37 (fourteen years ago)
thanks max.
― u aint messin w/ my dengue (gr8080), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 20:48 (fourteen years ago)
FDA bill passes
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:09 (fourteen years ago)
the stuff i've read about hispanics as a voting blog suggests that it might not necessarily be a huge stronghold for dems in the future bcuz third & fourth etc generation hispanics tend to skew more conservative than their immigrant or first/second gen elders
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:19 (fourteen years ago)
conservative in what sense
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:28 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ "voting blog" - typos v much in character
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:36 (fourteen years ago)
lol for real
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:28 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark
that they're less liberal on social issues than their parents -- mind you, this data showed like, maybe a 5% difference between responses from older hispanics vs younger hispanics (i.e. 65% of first generation hispanics support dems on immigration vs 60% for second or third) so i'm not saying that the GOP is gonna swing hispanic all of a sudden, just that the data showed that the more that hispanics become 'americanized' the less liberal (tho still liberal) they become on some issues
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
i haven't read the study in like three months but you get the gist
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 21 December 2010 23:42 (fourteen years ago)
I'll stand by a general observation I made a few weeks ago--that I always feel a little uneasy when somebody goes down because of something they've said rather than something they've done--but I'm not not-enjoying seeing it happen to Haley Barbour. Having endured his tenure as RNC head through the Clinton years, I was baffled when he started being talked up as presidential candidate. That appears to be over.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:18 (fourteen years ago)
eh I wouldn't write him off for this little gaffe, this will blow over.
I would write him off for being too fat/ugly/old/white to win the country though.
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:21 (fourteen years ago)
Will get Hazzard County bloc vote...
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
he does kinda look like Boss Hogg
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:26 (fourteen years ago)
The Citizens Council stuff was bad enough, but I hadn't heard anything about the watermelon line until a few minutes ago on CNN. That's a bad one-two (to go along with your three-four-five...).
― clemenza, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:28 (fourteen years ago)
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 19:47 (Yesterday)
It would be pretty funny if it turned out that Bush was actually unusually eloquent in Spanish.
― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:29 (fourteen years ago)
watermelon line is from 1982 btw
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
Wow--never heard it till now. You've got a point then about what's survivable.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:33 (fourteen years ago)
not surprising, really. but conservatives' hardline position on immigration will make it hard for them to swing the hispanic vote, i think. the tensions have as much to do with the optics as they do with policy differences (there's a nasty subtext to the right's anti-immigration position).
i think alfred said before that both parties have problems on the immigration issue, and he's right. but the depth of the problems aren't equal.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:42 (fourteen years ago)
I've read Barbour's speech twice and I don't understand what's so awful...?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:01 (fourteen years ago)
As John Cole put it:
I know this topic has been beaten to death, but Barbour’s comment still stuns me:In interviews Barbour doesn’t have much to say about growing up in the midst of the civil rights revolution. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said.Everyone seems to be focusing on the Citizen Council and the other race hate groups of the day, but for me, but when I hear him say it wasn’t that bad, I just can’t get past wanting to scream “BECAUSE YOU’RE FUCKING WHITE, ASSHOLE.”Sweet jeebus. The Holocaust wasn’t that bad for Hitler, either. Until the very end.
In interviews Barbour doesn’t have much to say about growing up in the midst of the civil rights revolution. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said.
Everyone seems to be focusing on the Citizen Council and the other race hate groups of the day, but for me, but when I hear him say it wasn’t that bad, I just can’t get past wanting to scream “BECAUSE YOU’RE FUCKING WHITE, ASSHOLE.”
Sweet jeebus. The Holocaust wasn’t that bad for Hitler, either. Until the very end.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:02 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, I got that -- he said he was more interested in looking at the girls. Moral blindness, ignorance -- all true. But it's not a Trent Lott moment.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:05 (fourteen years ago)
i.e. it's one of those manufactured Beltway outrages (fueled by Politico, naturally) I don't give a shit about
Yeah, but these jokers almost can't help themselves. He'll say something dumber at some point.
― Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:17 (fourteen years ago)
I think it's importance was magnified by the fact that he was considered - for some bizarre reason - to be a potential presidential candidate? so for the few people who actually believed he had a chance, he just blew it?
― hot lava hair (Z S), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:23 (fourteen years ago)
you really think its manufactured, al? "i just dont remember it being that bad" sounds to me like an insanely ignorant thing to say
― max, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 02:57 (fourteen years ago)
Eh. I'm too weary to manufacture outrage over the comments made by an obese Mississippian with no shot of appearing on anyone's short list for prez in 2012.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 03:04 (fourteen years ago)
Interrupting some Important Political Discussion for some internet jpeg humor.
http://i53.tinypic.com/23mocvb.jpg
― Cunga, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 03:10 (fourteen years ago)
so I guess it's been a good few days for Mr. Obama, eh?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 03:11 (fourteen years ago)
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/white-house-drafts-executive-order-for-indefinite-detention-1.php?ref=fpa
(T)he order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.
― rhymes with a$$ange (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 03:31 (fourteen years ago)
hooray!
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 03:35 (fourteen years ago)
Isn't it time for Deej to weigh in and say that politically Obama has to do that?
x-postI bet Barbour does have a shot at winning some Republican support as a presidential candidate. His current comments about when he was 12 and watching girls and how his particular little town's Citizen Council wasn't as bad as the KKK is his pathetic attempt to walk back his original comments
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 03:44 (fourteen years ago)
Obama's speech after DADT repeal.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 16:24 (fourteen years ago)
This is lame/sad/disgusting. otoh, since Congress has effectively curtailed any and all efforts to do otherwise, I hardly think this is surprising. Obama has nowhere to put these guys. He can't try them in civilian courts, he can't transfer them to prisons in the US, he can't return them all to the countries they were taken from - wtf is he supposed to do
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 16:46 (fourteen years ago)
I suppose he could just let them all go. that would be funny
yeah i mean, by my unerstanding...it's not a Good Thing, but it does at least theoretically provide an additional avenue for the release of these people. not that it would be used very often, lol, but still. but it does kind of entrench the idea that the president has the final say in these matters, which is bad obv
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 22 December 2010 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
this is kind of fucking awesome
For the Guantanamo guys: what about that One Way Trip To Mars? Get them out of our hair & further the cause of science.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 18:21 (fourteen years ago)
Also I think we should start refraining from making a point of saying "Obama administration" or "Bush administration" when referring to these indefinite detentions. Though I can understand the need to separate US foreign & security policy from the conscience of the citizenry that doesn't mind voting for it to happen.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 18:37 (fourteen years ago)
xp go Montana!
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 18:38 (fourteen years ago)
he citizenry that doesn't mind voting for it to happen.
it goes beyond "doesn't mind" - a huge majority of the citizenry ACTIVELY WANT these insane policies/legal strategies
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 18:48 (fourteen years ago)
This is pretty sweet.
1:49 p.m. | Updated A deal has been reached in the Senate to approve a bill that covers the cost of medical care for rescue workers and others who became sick from breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.The compromise on Wednesday was reached after Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both New York Democrats, agreed to changes demanded by conservative Republicans, who raised concerns about the measure’s cost.Under the new agreement, the bill provides $4.3 billion over five years for health coverage to the 9/11 workers, instead of the original $7.4 billion over eight years.In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, Senators Schumer and Gillibrand called the deal a “Christmas miracle.”http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/deal-for-911-health-bill-reached-in-senate/?partner=rss&emc=rss
The compromise on Wednesday was reached after Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both New York Democrats, agreed to changes demanded by conservative Republicans, who raised concerns about the measure’s cost.
Under the new agreement, the bill provides $4.3 billion over five years for health coverage to the 9/11 workers, instead of the original $7.4 billion over eight years.
In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, Senators Schumer and Gillibrand called the deal a “Christmas miracle.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/deal-for-911-health-bill-reached-in-senate/?partner=rss&emc=rss
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:05 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.advocate.com/News/News_Features/Exclusive_Interview_President_Barack_Obama_DADT/
tiny bit of elaboration on doma strategy
― tremendoid, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/thumb/1/15/Amano_Cyan_II.jpg/180px-Amano_Cyan_II.jpg
― o tannenbaum, o judge (crüt), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:13 (fourteen years ago)
xxp to adam--I'd be a little more thrilled if it wasn't like a decade after the fact...
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Holocaust-Winner-300x168.png
― goole, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:22 (fourteen years ago)
look closely...
― goole, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:38 (fourteen years ago)
He can't try them in civilian courts, he can't transfer them to prisons in the US, he can't return them all to the countries they were taken from - wtf is he supposed to do -Shakey
He can do military trials. Both the Bush and Obama administrations played games and argued and such regarding what rules would apply, but at least these folks would get trials (and yes I recognize that the ACLU and the Justice Department have different ideas on what rules would apply).
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:42 (fourteen years ago)
oh and military trials will, I'm sure, happen in some cases. and the dudes will be found guilty (is anyone EVER found innocent before a military tribunal? lol) and guess where they will go... Gitmo. Justice!
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
It wouldn't be the Obama administration without horrible news fucking up a good week.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
the upshot is that basically military trials are just for show - to present a semblance of justice being carried out while the essential situation stays the same: guys illegally arrested and held on questionable evidence indefinitely detained at Gitmo. until they die. presumably.
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:47 (fourteen years ago)
btw goole: yay! Elie WON the Holocaust! Hooray!
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
One guy in that documentary The Oath -- Osama's driver -- was tried via tribunal and eventually released.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah military trials haven't been super successful so far.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
Barney Frank pwns a reporter.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 23:07 (fourteen years ago)
luv ya Barney
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 23:13 (fourteen years ago)
Dear straight dudes:
Gays sharing rooms and bathrooms with you are more conscious about looking as if they're checking your cocks than they are about actually checking them out.
Thanks.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 23:22 (fourteen years ago)
*as if they're checking out your cocks
Not as stellar as the "young lady arguing with you would be like arguing with a dining room table", but still pretty good stuff.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 23:24 (fourteen years ago)
haha total bro
― u aint messin w/ my dengue (gr8080), Wednesday, 22 December 2010 23:25 (fourteen years ago)
i like how you can watch how slowly the reporter's brain is working in response to barney's prompts
― schlump, Thursday, 23 December 2010 00:01 (fourteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:44 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
how many times do i need to post that this is the stuff im pissed at obama about?? you guys are totally assuming im some kneejerk obama apologizer which isnt the case whatsoever
― classic fat joe face (deej), Thursday, 23 December 2010 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
i think there's a diff between acknowledging the role of a broken absurd legislative system & being apologetic for anything the dude does
― classic fat joe face (deej), Thursday, 23 December 2010 00:32 (fourteen years ago)
he is, i should say, taking the best possible course that doesnt involve upsetting anyone -- this is one of those issues where ppl should be upset, though -- its not the same to me as 'oh noes the rich will have more dollars' when youre talking about indefinite detention thats an extra level of rong
― classic fat joe face (deej), Thursday, 23 December 2010 00:35 (fourteen years ago)
High-five!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 23 December 2010 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/democratic-party/steven-spielberg-advising-nanc.html
"Midway through Philip Rucker and Paul Kane's story about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's transition to minority leader comes an interesting bit of news. The California Democrat, vilified by Republicans in the last election, has turned to director Steven Spielberg for help rebranding House Democrats.
Lawmakers say she is consulting marketing experts about building a stronger brand. The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius. Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported to Pelosi with a recommendation.
Spielberg has been a power player in Democratic politics for years, working on everything from President Bill Clinton's millennial celebrations to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last presidential race, but since then he's helped fundraise for President Obama.
But, the news that he is advising the leading Democrat in the House on building a strong party brand would seem to be a different -- and more expansive -- role than Spielberg has played in the past."
Spielberg: You see, Nancy, Barack is like a classic character of mine: unresolved issues with a father he never knew, sort of panders to aging baby boomers, fights Nazis -- you've got to play to those strengths!
― Cunga, Thursday, 23 December 2010 05:15 (fourteen years ago)
hahai agree w/ pelosi
― classic fat joe face (deej), Thursday, 23 December 2010 05:59 (fourteen years ago)
I would just like to point out that Dick Lugar looks like a child molester
― twat dust and ego overload (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 23 December 2010 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
meanwhile, GOPers who are not from NJ still have a love affair with our fine state's asshole governor.
― hey mommy it's yer phone sex ad (Eisbaer), Thursday, 23 December 2010 21:38 (fourteen years ago)
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/press-and-social-security.html
― k3vin k., Friday, 24 December 2010 03:44 (fourteen years ago)
http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-s-returning-democrats-unanimously-favor-filibuster-reform-20101222
― penis with a man hanging from it (Leee), Friday, 24 December 2010 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
Just spent Xmas eve arguing with my wife's sister's boyfriend about the estate tax.
― President Keyes, Saturday, 25 December 2010 03:22 (fourteen years ago)
did he call it the death tax?
― hot lava hair (Z S), Saturday, 25 December 2010 04:32 (fourteen years ago)
AHAHAHAHA nobody who calls it the Death Tax is rich/clever enough to leave much of anything to future generations anyway.
My mom's imaginary unemployed person on 'entitlements' is still somehow NEVER white. Go figure. Also, 'entitlements' is the Fox vocab word of the month, or should be.
― tl;dr swinton (suzy), Saturday, 25 December 2010 10:54 (fourteen years ago)
think i heard the first nonironic usage of ~death tax~ in the uk this year
thanks for that, frank luntz
― No Wicked Heart Shall Prosper.rar (nakhchivan), Saturday, 25 December 2010 11:01 (fourteen years ago)
rhyming slang?
― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 December 2010 11:56 (fourteen years ago)
frank luntz = franklins = benjamin franklins = $100 = 65 pounds = cost of 18yo Laphroaig = 18 yo Scottish relation just finished with first term at uni and he's discovered ayn rand
― kanellos (gbx), Saturday, 25 December 2010 15:18 (fourteen years ago)
ya that's pretty much what i had tbh
― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 December 2010 15:21 (fourteen years ago)
Reid then served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission from 1977 to 1981. When Jack Gordon, (LaToya Jackson's future agent and husband), offered a $12,000 bribe to get Reid to approve new games for casinos, Reid brought in the FBI to tape Gordon's bribery attempt and arrest him. After FBI agents interrupted the transaction as prearranged, Reid lost his temper and began choking Gordon, saying "You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me!" Gordon was convicted in 1979 and sentenced to six months in prison.[1] In 1981, Reid's wife found a bomb attached to the family station wagon; Reid suspected it was placed by Gordon.[1]
― goole, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
~~pimp~~
― max, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 22:05 (fourteen years ago)
seems to have cut down on the choking motherfuckers lately
― goole, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 22:05 (fourteen years ago)
too busy tweeting to @ladygaga
― max, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 22:06 (fourteen years ago)
I am enjoying this ridiculous review of Decision Points:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n01/eliot-weinberger/damn-right-i-said
― I Am Kurious Assange (polyphonic), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 22:41 (fourteen years ago)
Back to one of the usual 2010 discussion issues:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122902901.html
What, then, can Obama and his intermittently discouraged allies do with this peculiar blend of triumphs and setbacks?
For starters, they must restore a functional relationship between the White House and its sometimes-friends, sometimes-critics on the left. Too often, the White House has been caught whining about its progressive critics. The president's aides act as if whatever Obama happens to decide is the only sensible and realistic thing to do. For the left to ask Obama to be bolder in testing the limits of the possible means it is doing its job of pushing the president to do more, and to do it faster. Conservatives have mastered this approach. Why can't liberals do the same?
I agree with this, but it's not likely to convince the supposedly more pragmatic and real world oriented folks who are in agreement with what is realistic.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 30 December 2010 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
I read that decision points review. Motherfucker gets real.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 30 December 2010 18:00 (fourteen years ago)
sometimes I feel like someone had taken a bunch of old k-punk blogs and had replaced all references to 'Blair' w/ 'Obama'.
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 30 December 2010 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
It's supposed to be historically warm in Toronto on Saturday--almost 10 degrees celsius--and I heard a weather guy on the radio say it's because of all the "Obama air" coming up from the States. Make of this as you will.
― clemenza, Thursday, 30 December 2010 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
loool waht?
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 30 December 2010 21:40 (fourteen years ago)
from the lrb review -
Each new person is introduced with a single sentence, noting one or more of the following: 1) Texan origins; 2) college athletic achievements; 3) military service; 4) deep religious faith. The sentence ends with three personal characteristics: ‘honest, ethical and forthright’; ‘a brilliant mind, disarming modesty and a buoyant spirit’; ‘a statesman, a savvy lawyer and a magnet for talented people’; ‘smart, thoughtful, energetic’ (that’s Condi); ‘knowledgeable, articulate and confident’ (that’s Rummy); ‘a wise, principled, humane man’ (Clarence Thomas); and so on. Then the person does whatever Bush tells him to do.
awesome.
― j., Thursday, 30 December 2010 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
Kathleen Parker just used the phrase "the ongoing search for Bin Laden" on CNN. I don't mean to be glib, but at this point, the words sounded as absurd as "the search for the real killer" in connection with the O.J. case.
― clemenza, Friday, 31 December 2010 01:07 (fourteen years ago)
or as absurd as "Obama's liberal base"
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 31 December 2010 01:15 (fourteen years ago)
I'm a Chihuahua. You a Rottweiler.
― clemenza, Friday, 31 December 2010 13:52 (fourteen years ago)
Let's make lots of money.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 31 December 2010 14:01 (fourteen years ago)
:) I'm at work on a Nicki-Neil mash-up right now.
― clemenza, Friday, 31 December 2010 14:18 (fourteen years ago)
2011 politics preview:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us/politics/03repubs.html?ref=us
A flat-out repeal of the health care law would face a steep hurdle in the Senate, where Democrats still cling to a diminished majority, and would most certainly be vetoed by President Obama. But Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the House action would not be merely symbolic. “If we pass this bill with a sizable vote, and I think that we will, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate to do perhaps the same thing,” Mr. Upton said on “Fox News Sunday.” “But then, after that, we’re going to go after this bill piece by piece.”
Certainly as a political matter, the House debate may be the first battle in the new era of divided government, with each side struggling to present itself as the voters’ voice on an issue that has deeply divided the country.
“Many of the incoming Republican congressmen campaigned on the platform that included repealing Obamacare,” Representative Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, said in an interview. “This was the biggest mistake made by the 111th Congress.”
The repeal effort is part of a multipronged systematic strategy that House Republican leaders say will include trying to cut off money for the law, summoning Obama administration officials to testify at investigative hearings and encouraging state officials to attack the law in court as unconstitutional.
For House Republicans, a repeal vote would also be an important, if largely symbolic, opening salvo against the president, his party and his policy agenda. NY Times
― curmudgeon, Monday, 3 January 2011 02:21 (fourteen years ago)
A repeal is never going to happen. I mean, a bunch of stuff has already kicked in... maybe they'll get to reform and rescind some stuff coming down the pipeline but "Obamacare" is not getting repealed.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 3 January 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)
man, yet again the Republicans control the messaging. Three Republicans are quoted, all three use "Obamacare". And an earlier version of the article I read a few hours ago included a quote from Lindsey Graham which was notable for using "Obamacare" two times in two sentences.
It is now Obamacare, and the Democrats/White House did nothing to counteract this.
(side conversation - it's kind of weird in the new internet age to see articles go up on NYT and get substantially changed over the course of a few hours, like the removal of the Graham quote)
― Z S, ~THE~ University of Missouri-Columbia, (Z S), Monday, 3 January 2011 03:15 (fourteen years ago)
LOL the NY Times edits their shit like I edit my blog --- "oops i didn't see that before I hit publish..."
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 3 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)
It is now Obamacare
Funny thing is, the word "care" here is taken to mean something sinister.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 3 January 2011 07:23 (fourteen years ago)
I think 'Obama' is the sinister segment of that word
― Ned Rag & the Evil Olive Gardens (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 3 January 2011 07:24 (fourteen years ago)
― Z S, ~THE~ University of Missouri-Columbia, (Z S), Monday, January 3, 2011 3:15 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark
I guess the only way to counteract it is to come up with your own silly name for it and hope it somehow sticks? I think actually pointing out how silly and wrong "obamacare" is as a label seems kind of weak and puny, the only option is to come up with your own name.
It's hard to call it anything other than Health Care Reform though.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 3 January 2011 08:12 (fourteen years ago)
Insurance Industry Windfall
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 3 January 2011 13:30 (fourteen years ago)
But for Republicans the industry windfall is not big enough
― curmudgeon, Monday, 3 January 2011 15:49 (fourteen years ago)
DeLay resigned in disgrace and was convicted on money laundering charges, but the new Republican leadership team has hired DeLay's old team to help run the chamber. Indeed, the new Speaker's office will count on DeLay's former aides to help manage the House floor.
In fairness, it's worth noting that DeLay's former team hasn't been convicted of anything, and it's a stretch to suggest they should never be allowed to work in politics again.
The point, though, is that the new Republican House operation is starting to look an awful lot like the old Republican House operation. DeLay's aides will help run the show; corporate lobbyists have been brought on to shape policy; and the K Street project that Boehner swore to leave in the past is looking reconstituted.
from washington monthly blog
― curmudgeon, Monday, 3 January 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
over time, the Obamacare thing will be a positive for Dems and a negative for Republicans so who gives a shit. all it's going to do is cement Obama's legacy in the public discourse.
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 3 January 2011 17:01 (fourteen years ago)
totally lol'ing at the House GOP demands re: the constitutional citation requirement for every bill. yeah, y'all are real legal scholars ain't ya. let's make some more pointless busywork for the Reps' staff!
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 3 January 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)
But the White House and Dems in Congress need to have talking points and defend the good parts of health care over the next 2 years. They did a poor job of this in the first 2 years.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:09 (fourteen years ago)
wtf
NRO probably thinks Biden did it
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 3 January 2011 20:08 (fourteen years ago)
when I die, the least I can hope for is that I am described as "not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill"
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 3 January 2011 20:10 (fourteen years ago)
"He was just not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill," said Bayard Marin, an attorney who was representing Wheeler in a dispute over a couple's plans to build a new home in the historic district of Old New Castle where Wheeler lived.
xp lol
― goole, Monday, 3 January 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)
Woah famous advocate for veterans and winds up murdered and his body dumped in a landfill. Why does reality feel so much like an episode of Monk?
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 3 January 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)
I am probably going to hell for finding that line so funny.
― not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill (Nicole), Monday, 3 January 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
People Who Would Wind Up in a Landfill: A Picture Thread
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 3 January 2011 20:35 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/never-underestimate-fox/68800/
― goole, Monday, 3 January 2011 20:37 (fourteen years ago)
He was killed by Vince Foster's ghost.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 3 January 2011 22:20 (fourteen years ago)
ugh this is so fucked up
look if yr born here, YOU ARE A CITIZEN. exactly what country would these kids be citizens of, if not the one they're born in? do they think Latin American countries are going to acknowledge the citizenship of people not born within their borders? WTF. there's no way implementation of this law would not create huge legal clusterfucks
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:12 (fourteen years ago)
the ... racism... so ... appalling
You know if you give people citizenship they will pay taxes, and all taxes are bad, so this is kinda killing two birds with one stone for the party of anti-tax racists.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:23 (fourteen years ago)
Michigan? Really??
I'm thinking we should sell Arizona to Mexico...
― the Sonic Youths of suck (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:23 (fourteen years ago)
lol who cares, it will never happen. good luck overturning the 14th amendment, assholes
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:44 (fourteen years ago)
Don't stress too hard about that stuff, its really really unconstitutional and I don't think even the Roberts court could find otherwise. I know its disgusting racism but none of those laws are going to pass any courts' smell test.
I mean, here's what the 14th amendment has to say:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And, the most recent case concerning this, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, is set precedent that reaffirms Jus Soli. The conservatives are waging a battle they already lost in the fucking 1800s...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:55 (fourteen years ago)
lol k3v beat me I was taking my time being all longwinded...
awesome: Resisting the Green Dragon!
Environmentalism has become a new religion.Environmentalism's policies are devastating to the world's poor.Environmentalism threatens the sanctity of life.Environmentalism is targeting our youth.Environmentalism's vision is global.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:08 (fourteen years ago)
Hahaha yes... thank the Lord that people are finally tackling that totally unchristian notion of taking care of the earth and being a good steward of nature!
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:19 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.climateshifts.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/green-dragon.gif
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:25 (fourteen years ago)
Got to admit it's a pretty awesome dragon.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:26 (fourteen years ago)
^^^ Its got the whole Scientology website feel of trendwhore webdesign exploding at you with CRUCIAL SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE!
Oh and in case you want the AWESOME 12 minute preview but don't want to give these guys your email addy:
Dear Viceroy,
Thank you for your interest in "Resisting the Green Dragon," a ground-breaking, one-of-a-kind video series exposing the false religion and political agenda of radical environmentalism, and offering a genuinely Biblical, Christian perspective on Earth stewardship in its place.
To view a free 12-minute preview, go to www.vimeo.com/15849648Password: RESIST (case sensitive - must be all caps)
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:28 (fourteen years ago)
this is awesome!
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:39 (fourteen years ago)
love how the first half builds from this vague "environmentalism is scientifically wrong, politically motivated" and "it's killing the poor" to str8 up "they don't care about jesus!"
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:41 (fourteen years ago)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:53 (fourteen years ago)
Years ago a friend of mine made a drink out of weed and alcohol that he called The Green Dragon, so I'm just going to pretend they are talking about that.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:04 (fourteen years ago)
I would certainly not resist that green dragon.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:06 (fourteen years ago)
No, they don't even give a microbe of a shit about Jesus - and that's FABULOUS.
― pwn de floor (suzy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:17 (fourteen years ago)
so no one wants to talk about this guy daley
― max, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:39 (fourteen years ago)
"a long-time friend of Emanuel's... another Midwesterner from the pragmatic school of Chicago politics "
and a Daley! puke instead of talk
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:43 (fourteen years ago)
My mom does, but I'm not sure OH LOOK, THE MACHINE will help anybody with their work...
― pwn de floor (suzy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:44 (fourteen years ago)
it's confusing - i was reading about this in the LA Times who say
Obama's first chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, a former House member from Chicago's North Side who has returned to Chicago to become mayor.
He can do this because Richard M. Daley, the brother of William Daley, has decided to retire this winter from his City Hall political throne where he's run the Windy City's vaunted Democratic machine for a generation, or about as long as Richard J. Daley, the father of Richard M. and William.
Neither of the Richard Daleys nor William Daley should be confused with Valerie Jarrett, who was City Hall chief of staff for Richard M. and once hired Michelle Robinson as an aide. She....
...went on to become Michelle Obama and then first lady of the United States
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:46 (fourteen years ago)
i mean whatever - people know people, people trust people, etc
i don't like the general thrust of "banks will be happy about this" though
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:47 (fourteen years ago)
it's been noticed that the number of people obama trusts or even really enjoys being around is really small
― goole, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:50 (fourteen years ago)
btw Tracer, andrew malcolm is an ex-bushite shitbag hack. pinch of salt etc.
― goole, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:56 (fourteen years ago)
funny how the American public doesn't actually vote for people who would implement this policy
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:57 (fourteen years ago)
(xpost) Green Dragon stuff was O_o, until a quick research showed that "The Cornwall Alliance" that produced it is a shill for Big Oil. Surprise...
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/19/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/
― Glorified Lolcat (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:59 (fourteen years ago)
"Environmentalism threatens the sanctity of life" has got to be the hands down richest, most contraditory line of bullshit on the list.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:01 (fourteen years ago)
Gotta love this chapter heading: Global Warming: Why Evangelicals Should Not Be Alarmed.
― Glorified Lolcat (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/07/500x_screen_shot_2010-07-28_at_2.26.16_am.jpg
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:03 (fourteen years ago)
Love the idea of writing that in a dayplanner. I think I'm going to put it on my Google calendar...
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
jesus saves... the date!
― brownie, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:30 (fourteen years ago)
so are these dudes going to convene somewhere for the rapture? because i'm going to show up with a camera and a lot of really dickish questions.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:37 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/11/Profit%3ARapture.jpg
― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:37 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ Weiner and Devilman
a Jew and Satan!
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:40 (fourteen years ago)
together at last!
that book looks tremendous
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:42 (fourteen years ago)
wait who decided that May 21st was rapture day? I try and keep up on end-of-the-world predictions but this one is new and unexpected! There hasn't even been a history channel special about it!
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)
Go out! And buy it! And proclaim its greatness.
From what I can remember, mostly it's about, like, offering your Saved neighbors your pet-care & feeding services for after they're Raptured and Brinkley the Dog isn't...for a modest fee up front (of course).
xp WHAT'S THAT YOU SAY, MAY 21ST? Unacceptable. I get to at least have a HAPPY FREAKING BIRTHDAY this year. Make it the 27th.
― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:54 (fourteen years ago)
saw this about a month back on the Nashville alt-weekly site. so N'villians, are there really billboards up about this around town?! lol! http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2010/12/01/can-we-hang-when-jesus-comes-rapture-billboard-lady
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
(re 5/21/11 rapture)
5/5/2005 was a better end date. 12/21/2012 is a good one too -- but 5/21/2011? Its got no zazz, no pinache! Dud.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:04 (fourteen years ago)
but see, this time the Bible guarantees it
http://www.familyradio.com/index.html
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:08 (fourteen years ago)
By Camping's understanding, the Bible was dictated by God and every word and number carries a spiritual significance. He noticed that particular numbers appeared in the Bible at the same time particular themes are discussed.
The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is "completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.
"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."
Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days - the number of days in each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.
Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51 to the sum of previous multiplication total, and it equals 722,500.
Camping realized that (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17) = 722,500.
Or put into words: (Atonement x Completeness x Heaven), squared.
"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story," Camping said. "It's the story from the time Christ made payment for your sins until you're completely saved.
"I tell ya, I just about fell off my chair when I realized that," Camping said.
― Glorified Lolcat (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:11 (fourteen years ago)
my biggest complaint is that just a month earlier and i could have gotten out of paying income taxes for 2010. wtf, socialist apocalypse?
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:13 (fourteen years ago)
I made a new thread about this silly shit cause it is endlessly entertaining but doesn't have much to do with politics...The Rapture is happening May 21st, 2011 - so deal with it.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:14 (fourteen years ago)
"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story,"
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:28 (fourteen years ago)
o the irony - won't anyone donate a heart to Dick Cheney?
I sure fucking hope not
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
gonna a be classic RIP thread
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
He looks more like Mr. Burns every day.
― not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill (Nicole), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
a bit shocked to see shakey hasn't started one already, to be completely honest xp
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
why spoil the fun
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)
I shouldn't have left him off my dead pool list...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 22:26 (fourteen years ago)
"As a mother of five biological children and 23 foster children I pledge to do whatever I need to do to keep your family, my family, and the United States safe from harm."
Michelle Bachmann has TWENTY-THREE FOSTER CHILDREN wtf
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 22:36 (fourteen years ago)
that's child abuse
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 22:40 (fourteen years ago)
unfortunately I thought this datum was cute:
But most of all, Ms. Cheney said, her father has been working on his book, which is scheduled to come out this fall. “He still prefers to write in longhand on yellow legal pads despite my efforts to introduce a laptop into his process,” Ms. Cheney said.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 22:46 (fourteen years ago)
I'm a sucker for guys who write in longhand using legal pads :/
xp Holy shit how come MSNBC never mentioned this to me about Bachman? They talk about the wingnuts all the time but I haven't heard anything about Michelle's home sweatshop or whatever is going on.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 22:48 (fourteen years ago)
Bachmann Turner Overpopulation
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 22:52 (fourteen years ago)
id assume that means shes been a foster parent to 23 diff children, not 23 at the same time y'all
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:33 (fourteen years ago)
ohhhhhhhh, duh... though I wouldn't put it past her to have a child labor camp going on in her back yard.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:34 (fourteen years ago)
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, January 4, 2011 5:46 PM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark
Careful, that includes George Lucas.
― children with wasting diseases (Phil D.), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:35 (fourteen years ago)
and Charles Manson.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:37 (fourteen years ago)
And hitler.
― Z S, ~THE~ University of Missouri-Columbia, (Z S), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
I thought he wrote Mein Kampf in blood on the skins of jews.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:39 (fourteen years ago)
Tucker Carlson invents a new word
I guess this doesn't really have anything to do with politics but I don't wanna dig up the Michael Vick thread
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 00:01 (fourteen years ago)
why the hell do people care so much about Michael Vick?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 00:01 (fourteen years ago)
(btw the new word is "overspoke")
[I thought he wrote Mein Kampf in blood on the skins of jews.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, January 4, 2011 6:39 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Second printing only iirc
― children with wasting diseases (Phil D.), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 00:02 (fourteen years ago)
Cheney heart transplant makes me think of
http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/wp-content/uploads/waterworks.jpg
― pomp la familia (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 00:04 (fourteen years ago)
Congress to Return With G.O.P. Vowing to Alter Rules
It is usual for the House to tweak these rules with each new session. But Representative John A. Boehner, who on Wednesday will be sworn in as the new speaker, has made serious alterations in the rules. Members will vote on Wednesday on changes that ostensibly increase the transparency of lawmaking, but also consolidate Republican power over the budget process.Members offering bills for new programs will have to explain how they will pay for them, not by raising new revenues but by finding other ways to cut costs. Each bill introduced will also have to cite the specific constitutional authority for its contents.
Members offering bills for new programs will have to explain how they will pay for them, not by raising new revenues but by finding other ways to cut costs. Each bill introduced will also have to cite the specific constitutional authority for its contents.
so, uh...is this going to pass the vote?
― Z S, ~THE~ University of Missouri-Columbia, (Z S), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)
drink up imo
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 02:26 (fourteen years ago)
I doubt any rules as strict as the ones mentioned in that paragraph are going to make it. Cite the constitutional basis for the bill within the bill? That's just nonsense and its overstepping into the judicial branch IMO. But I always say "oh no something much more sensible will happen," and then the batshit crazy thing happens so who knows. All bets are off in this modern-day congress.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 02:38 (fourteen years ago)
MORE GREAT NEWS
The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.RelatedThe move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed “advance care planning” as one of the services that could be offered in the “annual wellness visit” for Medicare beneficiaries.While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor.
The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.
Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed “advance care planning” as one of the services that could be offered in the “annual wellness visit” for Medicare beneficiaries.
While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor.
― wvw (Z S), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 05:39 (fourteen years ago)
the best way to respond to insane criticism of non-existent death panels is to give in and remove the part of the legislation that was desperately grasped upon by insane people as some sort of connection to non-existent death panels
― wvw (Z S), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 05:42 (fourteen years ago)
i suspect that end-of-life planning will still be offered at these checkups, and that they'll be part of the literature that patients take home
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 10:28 (fourteen years ago)
ugh what the hell
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 10:58 (fourteen years ago)
did you read the article? it was already shelved as an explicit thing when HCR passed; it was inserted again in a kind of mistake or cowboy move by the doctor writing the reg; obama admin has taken it out again (possibly at the insistence of repubs who are like "whoa dude, we thought you had taken that out")
but, you know,
“This should not affect beneficiaries’ ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors.”
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 11:11 (fourteen years ago)
In that NY Times article on House rule changes that go into effect today (note these exceptions on amending bills):
A big exception will be the bill to repeal the health care law that House Republicans plan to bring up next week. That bill will not be subject to amendments, nor will Republicans have to abide by their own new rules that compel them to offset the cost of new bills that add to the deficit; the health care repeal and tax cuts are not subject to this new rule.
Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, had hoped to propose an amendment to the health care repeal legislation to provide for an up-or-down vote on several major components of the law. The components include elimination of lifetime limits on care, coverage of individuals up to age 26 on their parents’ health care plans, the banning of discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions and free preventive care for older Americans.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 13:56 (fourteen years ago)
boy this didn't take long
http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020
Garrett’s House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution. Invoking the “general welfare clause” or the “necessary and proper clause” would not be adequate constitutional citations.
― goole, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 15:42 (fourteen years ago)
gibbs out.
never liked that guy.
― goole, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:00 (fourteen years ago)
empty move unless Bam represses his own venomous outbursts against progressives
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
well even then it's an empty move, right?
― goole, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
by "Bam" i assume you mean War Criminal Obama
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)
I mean Slick 'Racky
No, just a teeny bit of "aww lib babies, u know I love ya" will restore the '08 crush of his base, right?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:13 (fourteen years ago)
trying to be less heated in my rhetoric in '11, since "president" already covers war criminal.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:15 (fourteen years ago)
kaneclap.gif
― Gukbe, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
It's always nice to avoid the appearance of bias, I guess.
ABC's Ariane de Vogue reports:Behind closed doors Chief Justice John Roberts swore in members of speaker designate John A. Boehner’s staff this morning during a private ceremony.The Constitution requires all federal employees to take an oath to support the Constitution, but it’s not every day the oath is administered by the Chief Justice of the United States. Boehner invited Roberts to appear, and the speaker designee’s spokesman believes it could be the first time staff was sworn in by a Chief Justice.
Behind closed doors Chief Justice John Roberts swore in members of speaker designate John A. Boehner’s staff this morning during a private ceremony.
The Constitution requires all federal employees to take an oath to support the Constitution, but it’s not every day the oath is administered by the Chief Justice of the United States. Boehner invited Roberts to appear, and the speaker designee’s spokesman believes it could be the first time staff was sworn in by a Chief Justice.
― children with wasting diseases (Phil D.), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
aaand they're all ex-de lay people. it's hammer time!
― goole, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)
Perhaps it's got something to do with all the unappointed Obama judges.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)
Although Roberts did issue a written statement earlier urging Congress to get judges appointed, I kinda doubt he said anything to House members or staff. More likely they winked at each other in response to the history of the staffers DeLay type activity supporting the constitution. Or maybe that's what you meant.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 19:37 (fourteen years ago)
So now congresspersons have to be constitutional scholars instead of just representatives of their constituents? That whole cite-the-constitutionality-for-the-bill thing is so crazy in my mind. Its just fucking bonkers. Legislators pass laws, the Courts decide if they're constitutional. We're mixing our branches too much here, I'm starting to get worried about the American System being able to continue running in a way that is even remotely like the way it was set up in the constitution! I mean like I'm starting to think Morbz might be right and this is the start of the end.
The great American experiment... killed by tea Party bozos?! please tell me I'm overreacting.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:33 (fourteen years ago)
oh come on. Have a drink.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:34 (fourteen years ago)
good idea!
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:36 (fourteen years ago)
Things run down: watches, empires. Did you believe The Great Liberal Majority would last a generation?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:36 (fourteen years ago)
haha no, but I had hoped that we could keep our branches of government separate and our checks and balances in place.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:58 (fourteen years ago)
thing is that the gop idiots pushing this don't seem to realize that half the shit they support would fail the constitutionality smell test.
― my little pony prophecy (will), Thursday, 6 January 2011 00:24 (fourteen years ago)
Roseanne and Ted Nugent sniping (for Roseanne, yelling) at each other on CNN. Anderson Cooper: "If I could break in for a minute...We're going to move on to something I know we can all agree on: Sarah Palin."
― clemenza, Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)
Nobody should get freaked out about Republican posturing on rules or anything else, we all know what these guys are here for and what they're going to do. Same old game. Scrabbling for influence in a declining empire. Don't forget the bigger pictures.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:49 (fourteen years ago)
in case you were wondering what this guy was up to:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/05/former-sen-feingold-will-be-a-professor-at-marquette-law-school/
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Thursday, 6 January 2011 05:42 (fourteen years ago)
chuck in st paul
[from the course catalog:]“Screwing America – a Dimocrat’s dream” 5 quarter hours, attendance optional, a paper must be submitted showing how it’s all Booosh’s fault and how Karl Marx is god to pass the course. Reference will be made to Cloward, Piven, and Alinsky. Zdra-stvu-eetee tovarich!
― goole, Thursday, 6 January 2011 06:16 (fourteen years ago)
tipsy OTM this rules thing is all posturing - I don't think the constitution-citation thing is in itself unconstitutional (Constitution mandates that the House and Senate have broad authority to make their own rules), it's just kind of stupid and pointless. Extra lolz for excluding citing the commerce or necessary and proper clauses. The whole "let's pretend that the law hasn't evolved over 250 years" is just hilarious.
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:40 (fourteen years ago)
Can't wait for the constitutional council on Nicaea where the Commerce and Necessary and proper clauses get relegated to the apocrypha.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
ap sez daley for cos
― max, Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
Sigh
― wvw (Z S), Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:59 (fourteen years ago)
it's the PAYGO stuff that sounds absolutely crippling and totally bananas
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 6 January 2011 17:05 (fourteen years ago)
This reading of the Constitution isn't going well.
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
The 112th will be one for the history books... I'm sure of it. This whole year is going to be very entertaining from a politics junkie POV. However, from a person-who-actually-cares-about-our-country-and-the-world POV though, it will probably be crushingly depressing...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
Moths to the FlameJosh Marshall | January 6, 2011, 11:43AM
While Reps were reading the portion of the Constitution covering presidential eligibility ("natural born citizen", a feral birther disrupted the proceedings from the Gallery, yelling "except obama, except obama. Help us Jesus."
― goole, Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:24 (fourteen years ago)
yes Jesus please clear this up for us
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)
don't you know he's busy till may 15th
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:34 (fourteen years ago)
Why did they capitalize Jesus but not Obama?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:36 (fourteen years ago)
But how can we know that Jesus wasn't born in Kenya, too? This conspiracy runs DEEP
― wvw (Z S), Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:37 (fourteen years ago)
Meanwhile Rep. Issa redefines what corrupt means: "It's like a bad hard drive."
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:40 (fourteen years ago)
This whole year is going to be very entertaining from a politics junkie POV. However, from a person-who-actually-cares-about-our-country-and-the-world POV though, it will probably be crushingly depressing...
I wonder which describes the posters here?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)
^^^^Keep digging, Darryl. xpost
Have to admit to a whole bunch of in-house trolling of my mom while Constitution was being read on TV because she was like 'good idea, they should do this more often' so I responded with 'yeah, many of the Republicans might never have read it before'. A couple of minutes later I wandered in and asked her if she'd been keeping a tally of tea party types who needed to move their lips as they followed along. Mom: *pinch face*
― pwn de floor (suzy), Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)
I wonder who here thinks ilx posters all fall within one category? xp
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
Imagine I told you that one of the candidates President Obama is considering for chief of staff opposed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, opposed doing health-care reform and led the Chamber of Commerce's effort to loosen the post-Enron regulations on the accounting and auditing professions. His major qualification for the job is that he's extremely well liked by the business community, in part because he routinely advocates for their interests and in part because he's a top executive at J.P. Morgan. His theory of politics is that the Democratic Party has become too liberal and needs to tack right. Last year, he doubled down on that argument by joining the board of Third Way
Apparently we are not supposed to worry about the above views of COS/Mr. Daley, because after all, Rahm Emanuel didn't support pushing the health care bill in one shot and Obama overruled him on that, therefore Obama will theoretically overrule Daley as well.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:31 (fourteen years ago)
god, I hate the phrase "double down."
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:37 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.boingboing.net/201004041101.jpg
― Glorified Lolcat (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.birdsasart.com/rootjpegs/blowfish.jpg
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:46 (fourteen years ago)
Isn't that fish the one that is known in Japan as a fugu?
― Aimless, Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
Obama playing chicken with the GOP
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 6 January 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
show me one pol who isnt attached the teet of the financial industry. I dont think such a person exists.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 6 January 2011 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
RIP Russ Feingold
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 January 2011 21:14 (fourteen years ago)
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Thursday, 6 January 2011 22:51 (fourteen years ago)
Obama stiffs Teamsters, lets Mexican trucks into US in bid to goose economy
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:03 (fourteen years ago)
oh ffs
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0111/professional_heft_e6d8f938-7f2a-410c-baef-d24638bf1249.html
floating the idea that the next press secretary might be... david brooks
― goole, Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:22 (fourteen years ago)
bhahahahahaaaaaa
"journalism"
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:22 (fourteen years ago)
The msnbc pundits are convinced its gonna be Karen Finney.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
how many pairs of underpants has David Brooks discarded since the rumor was "floated"?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:54 (fourteen years ago)
Nice start, guys!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-vot_n_805423.html
WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center. The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised."That wasn't planned. It just worked out that way," said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he "happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began."House ethics rules forbid fundraising in the Capitol.The Bucks County Courier Times said that roughly 500 Fitzpatrick supporters were on hand at the gathering. Fitzpatrick's campaign had solicited contributions for a bus trip to the Capitol and "Mike Fitzpatrick's Swearing In Celebration."Sessions is head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, responsible for fundraising for GOP candidates.
The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center. The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised.
"That wasn't planned. It just worked out that way," said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he "happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began."
House ethics rules forbid fundraising in the Capitol.
The Bucks County Courier Times said that roughly 500 Fitzpatrick supporters were on hand at the gathering. Fitzpatrick's campaign had solicited contributions for a bus trip to the Capitol and "Mike Fitzpatrick's Swearing In Celebration."
Sessions is head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, responsible for fundraising for GOP candidates.
― children with wasting diseases (Phil D.), Friday, 7 January 2011 00:52 (fourteen years ago)
*facepalm*
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Friday, 7 January 2011 01:23 (fourteen years ago)
white house press secretary should be Mel Brooks
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 7 January 2011 01:33 (fourteen years ago)
lmao @ those 2 dumbfucks
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Friday, 7 January 2011 01:58 (fourteen years ago)
iirc the Constitution does explicitly mention that swearing in remotely while watching television totally counts
― wvw (Z S), Friday, 7 January 2011 02:10 (fourteen years ago)
SERIOUSLY, ONE OF THE DALEY TRIBE? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 7 January 2011 07:17 (fourteen years ago)
roflz re: 2 dumbfucks
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 7 January 2011 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
Steve King, the gift that keeps on giving:
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) literally accused the Republican leadership of the House of being a bunch of big old liars on the floor of the House last night. But that isn't exactly what he meant.During a rant on the floor of the House about health care, King used the world "mendacity" -- meaning untruthfulness -- where he likely meant the opposite."As I deliberate and I listen to the gentleman from Tennessee, I have to make a point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman's words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and the leader and the speaker have established their integrity in their mendacity for years in this Congress and I don't think it can be challenged and those who do so are making aspersions by making wild accusations," King said.
During a rant on the floor of the House about health care, King used the world "mendacity" -- meaning untruthfulness -- where he likely meant the opposite.
"As I deliberate and I listen to the gentleman from Tennessee, I have to make a point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman's words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and the leader and the speaker have established their integrity in their mendacity for years in this Congress and I don't think it can be challenged and those who do so are making aspersions by making wild accusations," King said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsXM6FSpb9U
― children with wasting diseases (Phil D.), Friday, 7 January 2011 16:52 (fourteen years ago)
Also, LOL at what happens when conservative organizations pretend they can accommodate gay Republicans. Nobody will learn anything, of course, but it's still funny to watch.
― children with wasting diseases (Phil D.), Friday, 7 January 2011 16:55 (fourteen years ago)
hope this bankrupts BP tbh
altho I know it won't
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 8 January 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010602485_pf.html
so this is up there with the craziest things i've seen in awhile, haven't seen it discussed here, could be wrong.
― lenonsense (Clay), Saturday, 8 January 2011 09:03 (fourteen years ago)
oh wait that's a joke, lol @ me.
― lenonsense (Clay), Saturday, 8 January 2011 09:04 (fourteen years ago)
pwned
― gr8080, Saturday, 8 January 2011 11:04 (fourteen years ago)
:((((
― lenonsense (Clay), Saturday, 8 January 2011 11:08 (fourteen years ago)
Robert Reich bringin' it:
“If you widen the lens, the public is being sold a big lie — that our problems owe to unions and the size of government and not to fraud and deregulation and vast concentration of wealth. Obama’s failure is that he won’t challenge this Republican narrative, and give people a story that helps them connect the dots and understand where we’re going.
“By freezing federal salaries, by talking about deficits, by extending the Bush tax cuts, he’s legitimizing a Republican narrative... Why won’t he tell the alternative story? For three decades we’ve cut taxes on the wealthy while real wages stood still.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/business/economy/08reich.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 January 2011 16:08 (fourteen years ago)
reich otm (as usual)
― uh, do you have an electronic virgin, uh what (Z S), Saturday, 8 January 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
similarly, Wm Greider:
"Obama's maladroit tax compromise with Republicans was more destructive than creative. He acceded to the trickle-down doctrine of regressive taxation and skipped lightly over the fact that he was contributing further to stark injustices. Ordinary Americans will again be made to pay, one way or another, for the damage others did to society. Obama agrees that this is offensive but argues, This is politics, get over it. His brand of realism teaches people to disregard what he says. Look instead at what he does."
http://www.thenation.com/article/157511/end-new-deal-liberalism
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 January 2011 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
reich was cool with that douche daley being cheif of staff for some reason
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Saturday, 8 January 2011 16:56 (fourteen years ago)
So was Howard Dean... maybe they know something we don't...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Saturday, 8 January 2011 17:44 (fourteen years ago)
dean's rationale was pretty irrelevant tho - basically is a "straight shooter" can "get r dnoe" and will help obama get re-elected
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:08 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona
Gabrielle Giffords was apparently shot in the head in Tucson along with several members of her staff.
― Melissa W, Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:30 (fourteen years ago)
what?!?! Oh my god thats my congresswoman wtf?!?! Oh my god I hope she pull sthrough.I hate this fucking country. I hate this fucking state. This was some shithead reich-wing psych I'm sure of it. Its really time for me to start looking for ways to get out of this stupid dying nation.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:36 (fourteen years ago)
Jesus that's fucked up.
― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:36 (fourteen years ago)
I'm in shock -- it leads to typos.
wtf.
I hope Giffords is OK.
Wow.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:37 (fourteen years ago)
"apparently shot point blank in the head"
― uh, do you have an electronic virgin, uh what (Z S), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:40 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html#3_congresswoman-reportedly-shot-in-head
Shot at a Safeway. 5 others hurt, including staff
I voted for her – it was like this great surprise for me when she won. I feel so fucked up about this.
― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:42 (fourteen years ago)
The Democrat, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting a "Congress on Your Corner" event at the Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media....The "Congress on Your Corner" events allow constituents to present their concerns directly to her.
...The "Congress on Your Corner" events allow constituents to present their concerns directly to her.
― uh, do you have an electronic virgin, uh what (Z S), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:42 (fourteen years ago)
a twitter post:
UPDATED: #Giffords was on Palin's "target" map: http://usat.ly/e4NSjp Now shot http://bit.ly/dMXLyO 2nd Amend remedy?
Like I said, domestic terrorism like this is always from the ultra-right. And the GOP stokes all this hateful vile shit like it doesn't have consequences...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
this fucking country
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:44 (fourteen years ago)
jesus fucking fucking fucking fuck fuck fuck GODDAMMIT this is terrible.
― mavisbeacon666 (San Te), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:48 (fourteen years ago)
hope it was a low caliber weapon or something so she pulls through. shot when having the decency to make herself transparent to the public.
(i realize how ignorant the first part of that sentence sounds, but i have no clue about stuff like medical things and guns and such)
"In a website launched on Thursday, the six-month anniversary of the health care law, Palin puts a bull's-eye on 20 House districts under a headline that reads, "We've diagnosed the problem…Help us prescribe the solution."
Please tell me this was not a motivating factor. christ
― uh, do you have an electronic virgin, uh what (Z S), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:49 (fourteen years ago)
wouldn't be surprised, it doesn't take much to inspire lunatics these days....of course it's also just as possible itw as someone as loony as the guy who killed Dimebag, but I'm having my doubts on that
― mavisbeacon666 (San Te), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:50 (fourteen years ago)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/WilliamCrump63/targets.jpg
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:50 (fourteen years ago)
XP its not necessarily a death sentence even @ point blank range -- if the gun was a .22, or the aim was a little off -- we don't know the details so just hope for the best everyone. Giffords is a really good person and I voted for her with pride.
;__; irl
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:50 (fourteen years ago)
k I think i need to take a break from reading about this before I have a smashed laptop
― mavisbeacon666 (San Te), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:51 (fourteen years ago)
I'm not that familiar with Gifford...is she particularly confrontational with conservatives, or is she just not completely insane, and stands out as a result?
― uh, do you have an electronic virgin, uh what (Z S), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:51 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/rep_giffords_shot_in_arizona.php?ref=fpblg
"Update -- 1:48 PM: Rep. Giffords was one of the Reps who had their offices vandalized during the heat of the Health Care Reform debate."
― uh, do you have an electronic virgin, uh what (Z S), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:53 (fourteen years ago)
She's just a liberal in Arizona.... that's her "crime." She's confrontational with McCain and Jan Brewer but less so than say, Rep. Grijalva... he's the liberal heavy in the state.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Saturday, 8 January 2011 18:54 (fourteen years ago)
aw that was my mom's favorite grocery store ;_;
― gr8080, Saturday, 8 January 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)
well regardless of motivation it's a tragedy. i admit i may be guilty of jumping to conclusions here, but regardless, pull through Gifford
― mavisbeacon666 (San Te), Saturday, 8 January 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
Pima Co. Sheriff's Dept. confirms Giffords is dead.
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Saturday, 8 January 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Saturday, 8 January 2011 19:05 (fourteen years ago)
Good luck with those bloodstains, mama grizzly.
Somewhere in DC several Republican Congressional aides are brushing up on the Republican response after OKC bombing was pinned to McVeigh.
― Aimless, Saturday, 8 January 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
started a thread for this
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head outside a grocery store in Tucson while holding a public event
― gr8080, Saturday, 8 January 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
Greenwald on the latest "royal court personnel change":
Getting exercised about Bill Daley's empowerment is like going to the beach and being angry that it's full of sand: this appointment is the inevitable by-product of the essence of Washington and of the Obama presidency. It's what they do and who they are. As Matt Stoller suggested, the most surprising thing about the Daley pick is that he has no Goldman Sachs experience.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/daley/index.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 January 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
weird tone for him but great post yeah
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Saturday, 8 January 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)
wow
― Yutte Hermsgervørdenbrøtbørda (Eisbaer), Saturday, 8 January 2011 21:44 (fourteen years ago)
giffords isnt dead...
― max, Saturday, 8 January 2011 22:30 (fourteen years ago)
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Saturday, January 8, 2011 11:56 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
also btw--ill bet u 1m dollars theyre buds from working on nafta together
also im sure youve given up on chiefs of staff when youve seen Dick Morris in action
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 January 2011 22:55 (fourteen years ago)
BOOYA
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 January 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
surely I'm not the only one happy about this?
I wonder if they'll call him "The Hammer" on the inside
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 January 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
He's appealing the case and he could have been sentenced to alot more years. I'm holding off on any celebrating until he spends at least 3 years in prison.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:34 (fourteen years ago)
wow. blast from the past!
― kkvgz, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe, but Delay's staff was recently hired to assist the current Republican House leadership. Now admittedly the hired ones have never been charged with anything, but still the practices they employ bear watching.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 10 January 2011 22:28 (fourteen years ago)
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aH51yp4kQevP/x610.jpg
― gr8080, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 02:50 (fourteen years ago)
the eyes look dead but the crinkling around it means it's a genuine duchenne smile.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)
goodwin liu's been renominated to the 9th circuit
confirm this dude ffs
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 12 January 2011 04:00 (fourteen years ago)
ok change of subject:
california assembleywoman wants to ban raves:
http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/electronic_music_fans_campaign_to_save_the_rave
"Ma has introduced legislation that would make it a criminal offense to play pre-recorded music for more than 3 ½ hours"
― goole, Thursday, 13 January 2011 17:46 (fourteen years ago)
lol. pass it, then have raves take a five minute interval every 3 hours.
― Mordy, Thursday, 13 January 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)
what year is this?
xp loool
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Thursday, 13 January 2011 17:48 (fourteen years ago)
Warning. 'Lost' and 'Djarum' contain repetitive beats. We advise you not to play these tracks if the Criminal Justice Bill becomes law. 'Flutter' has been programmed in such a way that no bars contain identical beats and can therefore be played under the proposed new law. However, we advise DJs to have a lawyer and a musicologist present at all times to confirm the non repetitive nature of the music in the event of police harassment.
― caek, Thursday, 13 January 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)
Tea Party-backed school board in North Carolina decides, "Enough with this 'racial integration' crap already."
― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Thursday, 13 January 2011 18:05 (fourteen years ago)
hhhhhhhhhhahahahahaha
ok i finally got around to watching the palin speech
she calls the shooting "inexcusable"
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 13 January 2011 18:06 (fourteen years ago)
inexcusable!!
glad somebody finally had the balls to say that
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Thursday, 13 January 2011 18:07 (fourteen years ago)
― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:05 PM (3 minutes ago)
um wtf
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Thursday, 13 January 2011 18:09 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, it's especially depressing given that, according to the New York Times in 2005,
Over the last decade, black and Hispanic students here in Wake County have made such dramatic strides in standardized reading and math tests that it has caught the attention of education experts around the country.The main reason for the students' dramatic improvement, say officials and parents in the county, which includes Raleigh and its sprawling suburbs, is that the district has made a concerted effort to integrate the schools economically.
The main reason for the students' dramatic improvement, say officials and parents in the county, which includes Raleigh and its sprawling suburbs, is that the district has made a concerted effort to integrate the schools economically.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/education/25raleigh.html
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 13 January 2011 18:11 (fourteen years ago)
nicely played Hillary
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 13 January 2011 22:52 (fourteen years ago)
Clinton demanding the middle east grow up will be about as effective telling Glenn Beck to tone it down.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 13 January 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)
Mark my words!
well sure, I'm commending her oratorical skill more than anything
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 13 January 2011 23:03 (fourteen years ago)
why does that url have the word "diplo" in it
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 13 January 2011 23:04 (fourteen years ago)
It stands for DJ Diplomat.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 13 January 2011 23:06 (fourteen years ago)
hillary funds terrorism
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 13 January 2011 23:06 (fourteen years ago)
the republican bill to repeal HCR is called:
"Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 January 2011 11:48 (fourteen years ago)
rolls off the tongue, no?
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 12:12 (fourteen years ago)
it's a crappy name for a bill. lacks gravitas. better:
"Repealing the Job-Killing (Bad) Health Care Law Act, Which Is Spiriling Us Toward Socialism and Death Camps"
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 14 January 2011 12:15 (fourteen years ago)
Tedesco, who has emerged as the most vocal among the new majority on the nine-member board, said he and his colleagues are only seeking a simpler system in which children attend the schools closest to them. If the result is a handful of high-poverty schools, he said, perhaps that will better serve the most challenged students."If we had a school that was, like, 80 percent high-poverty, the public would see the challenges, the need to make it successful," he said. "Right now, we have diluted the problem, so we can ignore it."
"If we had a school that was, like, 80 percent high-poverty, the public would see the challenges, the need to make it successful," he said. "Right now, we have diluted the problem, so we can ignore it."
or "we need to fuck these schools up real bad so everyone will know how fucked up they are"
― onimotopoeic (onimo), Friday, 14 January 2011 12:30 (fourteen years ago)
Because before integration the public poured all of its resources into fixing the high-poverty schools.
― nickn, Friday, 14 January 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
Eh, I dunno, I went to integrated elementary & middle schools (in the US south), & they sucked, socially & educationally.
― Euler, Friday, 14 January 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
well apparently these were pretty good!
― goole, Friday, 14 January 2011 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
I'd like to hear what the students think. Also I'd like to know how they manage bad behavior in class / recess etc. At my schools the solution was to ignore it in the classroom, & at recess to let it go until they had to call out the riot squad (which happened twice during middle school).
― Euler, Friday, 14 January 2011 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
Dallas only recently had a federal judge stop monitoring the district after a ~1970 desegregation order. I imagine the Obama Justice Department will still be able to keep a close eye on that particular district?
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 14 January 2011 20:17 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah it's hard to believe that it won't fall foul of desegregation regs
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 January 2011 20:23 (fourteen years ago)
To a standing ovation of RNC members, Steele mournfully added, "and now I exit stage right."
― goole, Friday, 14 January 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.kenpittman.com/content_images/2/snagglepuss.jpg
Pictured: Michael Steele
― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/msteele-v2.gif
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/msteele-v2.gifhttp://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/msteele-v2.gifhttp://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/msteele-v2.gifhttp://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/msteele-v2.gifhttp://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/msteele-v2.gif
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:33 (fourteen years ago)
Gah.
― pwn de floor (suzy), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:34 (fourteen years ago)
someone repost the photo of Steele and the young interns. For old times' sake.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/12/best-boss-ever-michael-steele-the-rnc-interns.php?img=1
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-steeleinterns11.jpg
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:37 (fourteen years ago)
Awww. He looked like a cool boss.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)
RIP Michael Steele. Thanks for the laughter.
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:41 (fourteen years ago)
WHAT UP
gonna miss this dude
― *gets the power* (deej), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
i know, this is so wack
― goole, Friday, 14 January 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
me too
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
lol goole
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
He looks like the sort of boss who on a rainy day would run across the street to Starbucks and know to ask for a tall morning blend (since it's not brewed after noon it's brewed fresh upon request), light cream, light sugar -- all for me.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:48 (fourteen years ago)
he can always head the DNC now
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
dont be silly morbius thats a diff political party ~!! lol
― *gets the power* (deej), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
I guess the GOP's Obama 2.0 didn't work out too well
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
the Dems are already in disarray.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 21:52 (fourteen years ago)
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Friday, 14 January 2011 22:59 (fourteen years ago)
kind of amazed that the dude tasked with running the Republican Party is only a year older than me
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 January 2011 23:26 (fourteen years ago)
Can't believe they elected someone who's going to need a pronunciation guide to his name in every story the blood-libel media writes about him.
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Saturday, 15 January 2011 01:30 (fourteen years ago)
http://i.imgur.com/1GOak.png
― gr8080, Saturday, 15 January 2011 03:28 (fourteen years ago)
What's the deal with Republicans and their oversized gavels?!?!?!
http://✧✧✧.sa✧✧✧.com/wires/im✧✧✧.html?image=32c3745a-e968-4cfa-a055-994091086✧✧✧@n✧✧✧.a✧.o✧✧.j✧✧
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Saturday, 15 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)
REINCE PRIEBUS - [all vowels] = RNC PR BS
― gr8080, Saturday, 15 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)
Hmmn.
http://hosted.ap.org/photos/6/65ba05f7-4537-47aa-b572-c28a30037440-big.jpg
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Saturday, 15 January 2011 03:33 (fourteen years ago)
Ah here we go:
http://media.fresnobee.com/smedia/2011/01/14/19/363-GOP_Chairman.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.8.jpg
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Saturday, 15 January 2011 03:35 (fourteen years ago)
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf1pf1CYJG1qdmmiqo1_500.jpg
― www.altavista.com (Z S), Saturday, 15 January 2011 03:52 (fourteen years ago)
http://i52.tinypic.com/xary2w.jpg
― a nan, a bal, an anal ― (abanana), Saturday, 15 January 2011 04:15 (fourteen years ago)
― pwn de floor (suzy), Saturday, 15 January 2011 09:50 (fourteen years ago)
We won't miss Steele when he fails up (or not) and lands a pundit job at Fox. Or maybe like Palin (and, um, Bin Laden), he can just release the occasional pre-recorded fireplace chat/proclamation.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 15 January 2011 13:55 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ Gipper's Gavel
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 15 January 2011 13:56 (fourteen years ago)
I can't see steele actually getting a job at fox, maybe some smaller channel
― iatee, Saturday, 15 January 2011 14:22 (fourteen years ago)
Those Steele with the interns pics are lol.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Saturday, 15 January 2011 15:11 (fourteen years ago)
Lesbian bondage club, hell yes!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 15 January 2011 20:02 (fourteen years ago)
i guess this will get some play during repeal debate: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/health-care-industry-hearts-reform
"industry investors are becoming more confident that President Barack Obama's health care initiative won't massively disrupt the health industry and is likely to bring insurers new business."
― ________ (will), Saturday, 15 January 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
Surprise!
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Saturday, 15 January 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)
it was clear at the time it passed that it may not hurt insurance industry profits that much. Doctors are another story.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 15 January 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
There's also a little-known provision in the bill that for every job it kills, the job first gets a hearing in front of a death panel. This is also putting a lot of initial skeptics at ease.
― clemenza, Saturday, 15 January 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
so this is going around
http://lhote.blogspot.com/2011/01/blindspot.html
I find I can barely express what a profound failure, on balance, the conversation has been. Bloggers fail to have this conversation honestly because they are incapable of seeing or unwilling to admit that the political discourse, in our punditry, lacks a left-wing.
There are many myths within the political blogosphere, but none is so deeply troubling or so highly treasured by mainstream political bloggers than this: that the political blogosphere contains within it the whole range of respectable political opinion, and that once an issue has been thoroughly debated therein, it has had a full and fair hearing. The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.
― goole, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:30 (fourteen years ago)
man that post is fire - zinn would have been proud
well all the meta stuff and "blogging" talk might have been a little much for him but
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 18:02 (fourteen years ago)
two responses, with some cool history
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/seeing-like-a-policy-wonk-conservative-critique-edward-banfield-1977-edition/
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/seeing-like-a-policy-wonk-left-wing-critique-freddie-deboer-2011-edition/
― goole, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 18:18 (fourteen years ago)
If you check Sullivan's page, you've seen this, but if not:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/face-4.html
― clemenza, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
That's something that used to kill me about Hannity--he'd go on and on and on about Obama worship, seemingly oblivious to the deification of Reagan. He even had a daily segment called (sounds like a parody, but no) "What would Reagan say?"! I'm not saying there wasn't any truth to what he said about Obama, but I really doubt that there'll be earnest "What would Obama say?" radio segments found anywhere 20 years from now.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
Not unless ILX gets old wav files of gabbneb.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:08 (fourteen years ago)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/alabama-governor-touches-off-controversy-with-christian-comments/#more-143436
I don't even know where to begin here
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 21:42 (fourteen years ago)
'I was elected as a Republican candidate. But once I became governor ... I became the governor of all the people. I intend to live up to that. I am color blind," Bentley also said.
How did someone this rhetorically stupid win an election?
this is a good one to let go xp
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
You don't want to read the other big TPM story: Michael Reagan said his dad was a better friend to blacks than Obama.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
so long, Senator Droopy
don't let the door hit you on the way out
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:48 (fourteen years ago)
I've been hearing that Republicans are seriously threatening to lower the debt ceiling if they don't get their way...
― amphetamine enhanced scholar (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)
('lower' is the wrong word, I know :/)
― amphetamine enhanced scholar (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:58 (fourteen years ago)
Meanwhile Chris Matthews looks back fondly to the Reagan-Tip relationship.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:59 (fourteen years ago)
#1. January 18, 2011 5:32 pm Link
A cowardly end to an unprincipled career. Good riddance.— SKV
― gr8080, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 23:20 (fourteen years ago)
That's something that used to kill me about Hannity--he'd go on and on and on about Obama worship, seemingly oblivious to the deification of Reagan.
Also, just how anti-American Hollywood elitists are! So infinitely funny that the demigod of Real Heartland America is an actor who lived and died in LA.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 23:30 (fourteen years ago)
I've been hearing that Republicans are seriously threatening to lower the debt ceiling if they don't get their way...― amphetamine enhanced scholar (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:57 (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― amphetamine enhanced scholar (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:57 (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Welcome to Argentina.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 23:31 (fourteen years ago)
re Bentley quote - take heart, non-Christian women, at least he'll never try to "marry" you, "Alabama-style"! *honk honk* wokka wokka
― ________ (will), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 00:30 (fourteen years ago)
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:48 PM (1 hour ago)
http://rarerborealis.com/wordpressblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/PeanutsDance.gif
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 00:35 (fourteen years ago)
i am a bit disappointed that i won't be able to ever officially vote against that schmuck
Not that this lets him off the hook for anything, but he at least sort of goes out on a high note (George Constanza style) with DADT. But he still has time to do other stupid stuff.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:17 (fourteen years ago)
God bless Comcast & NRC-Universal... and the FCC of course
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQwvkVlhCAU&feature=player_embedded#!
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:52 (fourteen years ago)
"She's not a Harvard Lawyer"--because "she's not president of the Harvard Law Review" doesn't scan well.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:00 (fourteen years ago)
Obama, champion of Bush terror policies:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/18/cheney/index.html
Looks like Cheney should head up the Committee to Re-Elect the CHANGE Man.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 12:48 (fourteen years ago)
great article
― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:00 (fourteen years ago)
lol Nazis
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:04 (fourteen years ago)
Dudes, Lieberman will still be there until Jan. 2013. What do you think his scorched earth campaign will look like?
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:25 (fourteen years ago)
I think he's going to be more in "securing legacy" mode
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
meanwhile on the House floor today healthcare was discussed:
the GOP line, speaker after speaker, seems to be how horrible it is that Democrats are exploding the deficit, raising taxes, and cutting benefits. Just saw Lee Terry of Nebraska, same thing. And really, the 10/6 lie -- which Republican after Republican is repeating -- is just embarrassing; it's an entirely invented talking point with no foundation in realityhttp://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/01/gop-repeal-argument-boiled-down.html
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:37 (fourteen years ago)
Mika, that’s the gig. It’s only January of 2011, kiddo. You still have at least two years ahead of you. You want to stay in this game, you dig deep. You find another gear. You show up to work every day, get your hair and makeup done. You slap on a smile. You get on TV and repeat what Sarah Palin said on Hannity last night right into the lens. You know, news.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 20 January 2011 01:44 (fourteen years ago)
Ugh. Massive symbolic middle finger to Obama and at least 30 million other Americans from the Party of No.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 20 January 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
Eh. Who's really paying attention besides listeners of talk radio/
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 January 2011 01:57 (fourteen years ago)
watched fox news (i know) for a while this past morning. their spokesmodels were clearly approaching the idea of the vote with symbolically raised eyebrows. "is it really going to eliminate jobs?" (a question eric cantor, the author of the bill, dodged entirely, instead appealing to the free market, states' rights and constitutional fundamentalism). "is there really any chance that this will become law?" (no one would simply say "yes"). suggested to me that fox knows this is an empty exercise and one that stands a good chance of alienating voters. was interesting to briefly see fox behave almost-but-not-quite like an actual news organization.
― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Thursday, 20 January 2011 03:27 (fourteen years ago)
When the Dems got control of Congress they voted to continue funding Bush's war, so I'll give the GOP a crumb of credit for at least knowing how to pander to the people who elected them.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 January 2011 03:30 (fourteen years ago)
OTM
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 20 January 2011 03:39 (fourteen years ago)
oh good
christ these fuckign people why don't they just blow the planet up and kill us all and be done with it
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 January 2011 17:37 (fourteen years ago)
Most Senate Republicans think the sweeping repeal of EPA authority is the best approach, a Senate aide said, and they’re confident they can get broad Democratic support.
“There’s anywhere from 12 to 15 Democrats that we are eying that we think would have an interest in supporting a bill like this,” the aide said. Among the Democrats Republicans are watching: Bob Casey (Pa.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Jim Webb (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.).
I hope politico and the Repubs are wrong re some of these Senators, but it does not look good.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
doubt they could overcome a veto tbh
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:14 (fourteen years ago)
fuck. that.
dunno about klobuchar, but if she's seeking to repeal EPA authority, i can't help but think it's with an eye to the proposed sulfide mine in northern minnesota. it's grossly offensive to me, but it might win some short-term support for generating jobs or w/e. anyway, it's not obv related to emissions/greenhouse gases, but curbing environmental protections across the board would certain grease the skids
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)
It's from an article behind a firewall, by here's industry's perspective (c+p'd via iPhone so formatting may get fucked):
“I think it is a virtual certainty that Congress will address theregulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency with respectto greenhouse gases,” said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with Bracewell &Giuliani who represents refiners, utilities and manufacturers, at a Jan.14 briefing at the firm's Washington , D.C., office.Segal suggested that a bill delaying EPA climate regulations could passthe House and Senate on a stand-alone basis, but he noted that theGOP-led House could also attach the legislation to a spending bill orsimilar must-pass package to force a floor vote in the Senate andinsulate it from a presidential veto.“So those, for example, who blithely say, 'Well why should Congresswaste their time on GHG regulatory authority, when the president willonly veto it, or [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid will never give ita vote on the Senate side,' I don't think are being realistic about allthe range of options through which Congress may pass legislation,” Segalsaid.One possibility would be attaching a traditional appropriations rider orbroader piece of legislation to EPA's fiscal year 2011 spending bill, hesaid. If such a bill “were to pass, the stark alternative the presidentof the United States would have would be to veto the funding for asection of the United States government, because he doesn't have aline-item veto, either on spending or on appropriations riders,” Segalnoted. “So as a result, that changes, obviously, the political dynamic.”
“I think it is a virtual certainty that Congress will address theregulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency with respectto greenhouse gases,” said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with Bracewell &Giuliani who represents refiners, utilities and manufacturers, at a Jan.14 briefing at the firm's Washington , D.C., office.
Segal suggested that a bill delaying EPA climate regulations could passthe House and Senate on a stand-alone basis, but he noted that theGOP-led House could also attach the legislation to a spending bill orsimilar must-pass package to force a floor vote in the Senate andinsulate it from a presidential veto.
“So those, for example, who blithely say, 'Well why should Congresswaste their time on GHG regulatory authority, when the president willonly veto it, or [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid will never give ita vote on the Senate side,' I don't think are being realistic about allthe range of options through which Congress may pass legislation,” Segalsaid.One possibility would be attaching a traditional appropriations rider orbroader piece of legislation to EPA's fiscal year 2011 spending bill, hesaid. If such a bill “were to pass, the stark alternative the presidentof the United States would have would be to veto the funding for asection of the United States government, because he doesn't have aline-item veto, either on spending or on appropriations riders,” Segalnoted. “So as a result, that changes, obviously, the political dynamic.”
― 23 24 (Z S), Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
This piecemeal shit is pointless. The Republicans should just vote on a whole ground-up do-over, starting with the constitution.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:58 (fourteen years ago)
So don't worry, if there's a way to fuck over you and your descendants any deeper than they already have, conservatives will exploit it.
― 23 24 (Z S), Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:59 (fourteen years ago)
what a relief
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 January 2011 20:08 (fourteen years ago)
goddamn descendants
Time to break out Santorum.jpg again!
In eyebrow raising comments, possible presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is questioning how President Barack Obama — as an African-American — can support abortion rights.Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania who is seriously considering a run for his party’s 2012 presidential nomination, argued in an interview that a fetus is a person and said he considers it “almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”Discussing Obama’s views on abortion during a two-hour sit-down with CNS News on Thursday, Santorum said the president’s pro-choice position meant he was valuing some lives over others.“The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution?” he said.“And Barack Obama says no. Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”
Discussing Obama’s views on abortion during a two-hour sit-down with CNS News on Thursday, Santorum said the president’s pro-choice position meant he was valuing some lives over others.
“The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution?” he said.
“And Barack Obama says no. Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”
― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Thursday, 20 January 2011 23:59 (fourteen years ago)
WOW
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 21 January 2011 00:11 (fourteen years ago)
once again... ladies and gentlemen, the American public
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 21 January 2011 00:12 (fourteen years ago)
can't wait for Santorum primary
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 21 January 2011 00:14 (fourteen years ago)
I can understand why Santorum would consider himself a "possible presidential hopeful" - that's his right, people are delusional, etc. But what I don't understand is why pretty much every news article that mentions Santorum ALSO qualifies him as a potential presidential candidate. I mean...come ON. the thought of that happening is so unrealistic that his Nth stupid comment today doesn't even reduce his chances. it's gone from like 0.0% to 0.00000%
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 00:18 (fourteen years ago)
that isn't even the stupidest thing he said in the interview!
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 21 January 2011 00:18 (fourteen years ago)
uh oh, 0.00000% to 0.000000000000%, the significant digits are piling on!!
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 00:40 (fourteen years ago)
wtf santorum
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:04 (fourteen years ago)
i fucking hate this country
i can't even get mad at that, the slaves = fetuses thing has been a thing for pro-lifers for a decade at least
― goole, Friday, 21 January 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
not that it's not gross now or anything, of course it is.
just shows how doomed santorum is, bush at least talked the "dred scott" code when needed
― goole, Friday, 21 January 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.),
That's right -- give Sarah Palin more ammunition.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:14 (fourteen years ago)
oh, who gives a dang about Sarah Palin? ;)
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:22 (fourteen years ago)
btw, apropos of the discussion the other day on the Giffords thread about Sarah Palin's importance, you probably saw Josh Marshall's post today that justified TPM's extensive coverage of her:
Frequently a reader will write in to say, "Why are you giving her so much attention? You're just pumping her up. If you and the other places would stop giving her so much oxygen, she and her whole circus would just wither away."I don't know which circle of the hell of myopia you need to be residing in to think like this. But it's very deep in there, I assure you. Much as I love this thing our team has created, I assure you that Palin's popularity, notoriety, footprint on the public stage is quite independent of TPM. Indeed, TPM and a dozen other similar or not so similar publications you can find on the web. Palin is such a big deal because she's got a chunk of the political nation that is very, very into her. She resonates deeply with her core supporters. She's one of those people who cuts an electric figure on the public stage because she slices right through the society and generates one intense response from one side and a completely opposite but equally intense response from the other. And she says, let's be honest, a lot of really crazy stuff.
I don't know which circle of the hell of myopia you need to be residing in to think like this. But it's very deep in there, I assure you. Much as I love this thing our team has created, I assure you that Palin's popularity, notoriety, footprint on the public stage is quite independent of TPM. Indeed, TPM and a dozen other similar or not so similar publications you can find on the web. Palin is such a big deal because she's got a chunk of the political nation that is very, very into her. She resonates deeply with her core supporters. She's one of those people who cuts an electric figure on the public stage because she slices right through the society and generates one intense response from one side and a completely opposite but equally intense response from the other. And she says, let's be honest, a lot of really crazy stuff.
don't really agree with plenty of that, but it's interesting to hear a prominent political blogger justify the coverage.
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:26 (fourteen years ago)
I read it this afternoon and realized how little I give a shit what the political class thinks. What would Josh Marshall do without his General Zod?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
Alan Keyes used this line against Obama in their senatorial debate already
(xxxxposts)
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:30 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i can't think of any other implication other than obama is 3/5ths of a person himself, so who is he to decide personhood?
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Friday, 21 January 2011 01:33 (fourteen years ago)
"Time and again, they have shown a willingness to kill--to make money, to eliminate rivals, and to silence witnesses"--Eric Holder on the Mafia, speaking on behalf of the United States government. I believe the technical term for this is "Morbius bait."
― clemenza, Friday, 21 January 2011 05:32 (fourteen years ago)
PRES. BUSH: Frank, please consider filling a post I'm creating. It may mean long hours and dangerous nights, surrounded by some of the scummiest elements in our society.
FRANK DREBIN: You want me to be in your cabinet?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 21 January 2011 12:04 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2011/01/sppcoverlowerqual.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 21 January 2011 12:28 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2011/01/spprobama.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 21 January 2011 12:34 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2011/01/steampunkpunkpalin.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 21 January 2011 12:35 (fourteen years ago)
pleasant nightmares
― amphetamine enhanced scholar (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 21 January 2011 13:34 (fourteen years ago)
Reading that Times articles/the tea leaves, I think the only budget cut that would assuage both the Tea Party and the American people in general would be to fire every member of Congress and the Senate. How much money would that save?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 21 January 2011 14:42 (fourteen years ago)
Hundreds if not thousands fsill
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 14:59 (fourteen years ago)
iPhone fuuuuuuuuuu
Meanwhile, Fred Upton (asshole - MI)
is either ignorant or evil, or both, sabotaging your future in any casehates net neutrality
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 15:07 (fourteen years ago)
and Those budget cuts proposed by that Republican workgroup are ugly (and some the same ol', same ol'--no National Endowment for the Arts;) and I hate the fact that they get discussed without any mention of how the rich people tax cuts, unfunded on the books wars, and the Bush prescription drug company bill contributed to the deficit.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 21 January 2011 15:13 (fourteen years ago)
xpost to self
Gotta love Upton's referral to "EPA's rampant regulations". David Roberts wrote an excellent piece the other day on the subject.
...This way of framing things has certain intuitive appeal as long as you don't know much about what climate legislation would have done, what EPA plans to do, or the legal environment in which EPA is acting. Unfortunately, this describes the vast bulk of the U.S. political commentariat and, God help us, most legislators. From their distant and ideologically inflected perspective, one "carbon something something" is the same as another....In short, given its legal mandate to address greenhouse gases, EPA is acting with about as much caution and restraint as it possibly can, short of doing what the Bush administration did, which was dissemble and delay.
...In short, given its legal mandate to address greenhouse gases, EPA is acting with about as much caution and restraint as it possibly can, short of doing what the Bush administration did, which was dissemble and delay.
This is what happens when Obama/dems/progressives don't push back against the nonsense hard enough, or with enough persistence. The absurd GOP line of thought about EPA is becoming mainstream, and there's no one to defend it except enviro blogs and an occasional op-ed. And maybe Barbara Boxer, I guess.
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 21 January 2011 15:20 (fourteen years ago)
Jeffrey R. Immelt, chief of G.E., named to Bam's economic council. *SURPRISE*
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 January 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)
maybe i'm becoming more Morbz-ish as i grow older, but i wanted to pull my hair out re the Immelt selection. esp. since he's replacing Volcker.
― i want to eat unicorn meat (Eisbaer), Saturday, 22 January 2011 00:23 (fourteen years ago)
its not like anyone was listening to Volcker anyways
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Saturday, 22 January 2011 00:30 (fourteen years ago)
Finally Morbs has something in common with the dopes at FOX -- they don't like Immel either!
This morning, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson and guests Stuart Varney and Noelle Nikpour went right to work planting a seed in viewers' minds: Is President Obama's appointment of General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt as head of a new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness a "payback" or "pay off?"Here's Varney kicking off the baseless accusations that Obama "paid off" Immelt for what Varney claimed was Immelt's "dutiful services running NBC for the Democrats":VARNEY: You could also say this is a payoff. This is Mr. Immelt of GE, which owned, formerly, NBC, which was turned into an arm of the Democratic Party in the run-up to the elections of 2008 and for the next two years after that. Maybe he's being paid off for his dutiful services running NBC for the Democrats.
Here's Varney kicking off the baseless accusations that Obama "paid off" Immelt for what Varney claimed was Immelt's "dutiful services running NBC for the Democrats":
VARNEY: You could also say this is a payoff. This is Mr. Immelt of GE, which owned, formerly, NBC, which was turned into an arm of the Democratic Party in the run-up to the elections of 2008 and for the next two years after that. Maybe he's being paid off for his dutiful services running NBC for the Democrats.
― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Saturday, 22 January 2011 00:37 (fourteen years ago)
i really don't know what they mean by "running NBC for the Democrats," unless they mean that NBC ran shows featuring Tina Fey that made fun of Sarah Palin.
― i want to eat unicorn meat (Eisbaer), Saturday, 22 January 2011 01:19 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe this means NBC had the audacity to report the freefall of the economy under President GW Bush in September/October 2008?
― Aimless, Saturday, 22 January 2011 01:47 (fourteen years ago)
guessing they're referring to MSNBC
but the chutzpah required to say criticize another network for turning into "an arm" or a political party on FOX NEW is hilarious and depressing
― 23 24 (Z S), Saturday, 22 January 2011 03:51 (fourteen years ago)
hope immelts able to do for the economy what he wasnt able to do for GE
― max, Saturday, 22 January 2011 03:52 (fourteen years ago)
i mean i "get" the twisted logic of appointing a successful businessman to some economic position--i dont agree but i can see it
but immelts... not successful
― max, Saturday, 22 January 2011 03:53 (fourteen years ago)
speaking of MSNBC, Keith Olbermann's done?
― 23 24 (Z S), Saturday, 22 January 2011 03:57 (fourteen years ago)
oh, already discussed over here, sorry: Keith Olberman is sort of longwinded
― 23 24 (Z S), Saturday, 22 January 2011 03:58 (fourteen years ago)
Haha, Comcast/NBC merger goes through, Olbermann ditched. YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA AT WORK.
― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Saturday, 22 January 2011 13:25 (fourteen years ago)
So how will Obama sell out liberal ideas tonight in the name of bipartisanship?
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:47 (fourteen years ago)
"Most of us would like to see the Democrats remain the strong defenders of Social Security, which they have to be if they want to win the next election," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future.
Administration officials cautioned that Obama is not necessarily taking benefit cuts off the table. They said his vision for deficit reduction will become clearer with the release of his 2012 budget request in mid-February and in the months beyond, as both parties test the limits for compromise. from Washington Post
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:58 (fourteen years ago)
Michelle Bachmann: Founding Fathers ended slavery
classic
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:21 (fourteen years ago)
yall excited for bachmann's tea party response to the state of the union?
― daria-g, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:36 (fourteen years ago)
AMPED
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:37 (fourteen years ago)
We should create a separate thread; this one will become too unwieldy.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:38 (fourteen years ago)
Can't wait to hear how Scalia's jurisprudence has informed her response.
guys the huffington post (ikr?!) has an evening newsletter from their hill staff, and it is weird and hilarious. i recommend.
tonight's edition sez:
EXCLUSIVE preview of Bachmann's response.
― daria-g, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:59 (fourteen years ago)
hahaha ok you guys larry o'don just made a long analogy about 'the last time the oscars were this white' and brought it around to 'black actors can't get credit for their successes, and maybe black presidents have trouble too'
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:05 (fourteen years ago)
if there are no objections i might start a new thread
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:08 (fourteen years ago)
go for it, i couldn't think of any clever titles
― daria-g, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:08 (fourteen years ago)
haha i can't either
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:11 (fourteen years ago)
I feel like tonight is gonna furnish some for sure tho
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
sorta hesitant to post this because it's sure to get buried under SOTU chatter but there's a russ feingold interview in this week's nation
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.stateoftheuniondrinkinggame.com/
― champagne in the arse (suzy), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:14 (fourteen years ago)
chris matthews just descended into utter gibberish for a good 10 seconds
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:45 (fourteen years ago)
hahah i know right. he gets wackier the later the show is on the air, usually. post speech should be LOL
― daria-g, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:46 (fourteen years ago)
rach just schooled chris u get em giiiiiiiirl
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:49 (fourteen years ago)
here i started a thread for SOTU specifically
In 2011, the State of the Union is ____________!
― daria-g, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
c/o digby, Rick Perlstein writes in Newsweek how Obama utterly fails to grasp how Reagan, with benign malice, destroyed his opposition.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 04:00 (fourteen years ago)
Reagan had the advantage of a compliant media to fawn upon him.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 04:13 (fourteen years ago)
Obama's still got that.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 04:15 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i was gonna say
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 04:15 (fourteen years ago)
Our media, more than the pubic, want to believe in presidents.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 04:17 (fourteen years ago)
the lack of the 'l' there is actually kind of stunning.
― tbf explicitly gay albums aren't quite as cultural (the table is the table), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 06:01 (fourteen years ago)
half his pubic still wanna fuck the slick hustler
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 12:44 (fourteen years ago)
― onimo, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 13:33 (fourteen years ago)
the other half still wanna read clive cussler
― the size of Snow's skin pistol (latebloomer), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 14:00 (fourteen years ago)
and the other half of his pubic?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 14:06 (fourteen years ago)
not voting in the two-oh-twelve
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 14:59 (fourteen years ago)
hope bam will still be able to win ny state ;_;
― iatee, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 15:48 (fourteen years ago)
from the otm conor friedersdorf:
Unlike every president in memory, I'll level with you:– Adults and even children are being raped with impunity by people who aren't punished even when they're caught.– Lockheed Martin is imprudently, alarmingly large and powerful.– Sex slavery is surprisingly common.– Our southern neighbor is beset by murder and mayhem, partly due to our failed drug prohibition policies.– We're spending much more money than we're taking in, and the interest on the debt alone is getting increasingly burdensome. Our most popular entitlements, as currently constituted, are wildly unsustainable.– Due to a federal government whose scope far exceeds the expectations of the framers, the presidency is an unmanageable job.– Our largest state is being bankrupted by a pension crisis that isn't likely to be fixed.– Paramilitary forces routinely break into the homes of Americans with battering rams, and with surprising frequency they get the wrong address, shoot pets, or injure or kill people who are innocent of any crime.There's a lot of other bad news.
– Adults and even children are being raped with impunity by people who aren't punished even when they're caught.
– Lockheed Martin is imprudently, alarmingly large and powerful.
– Sex slavery is surprisingly common.
– Our southern neighbor is beset by murder and mayhem, partly due to our failed drug prohibition policies.
– We're spending much more money than we're taking in, and the interest on the debt alone is getting increasingly burdensome. Our most popular entitlements, as currently constituted, are wildly unsustainable.
– Due to a federal government whose scope far exceeds the expectations of the framers, the presidency is an unmanageable job.
– Our largest state is being bankrupted by a pension crisis that isn't likely to be fixed.
– Paramilitary forces routinely break into the homes of Americans with battering rams, and with surprising frequency they get the wrong address, shoot pets, or injure or kill people who are innocent of any crime.
There's a lot of other bad news.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
Our southern neighbor is beset by murder and mayhem, partly due to our failed drug prohibition policies.
yeah i kinda think i will be a v old man before we ever shape up our drug policy
― ullr saves (gbx), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
Didja notice Bam's climate policy chief is resigning?
HE HAS A CLIMATE POLICY CHIEF
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 03:12 (fourteen years ago)
had an awkward conversation earlier today with someone who shared a limo ride with her in the 1990s and thought she was "very shrill" and that's why she was relatively unsuccessful as the climate czar
― 23 24 (Z S), Thursday, 27 January 2011 05:35 (fourteen years ago)
Scheer calls bullshit:
What nonsense to insist that low public school test scores hobbled our economy when it was the highest-achieving graduates of our elite colleges who designed and sold the financial gimmicks that created this crisis. Indeed, some of the folks who once designed the phony mathematical formulas underwriting subprime mortgage–based derivatives won Nobel Prizes for their effort. A pioneer in the securitization of mortgage debt, as well as exporting jobs abroad, was one Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, whom Obama recently appointed to head his new job creation panel....
It is an absurd demarcation to freeze spending when so many remain unemployed just because corporate profits, and therefore stock market valuations, seem firm. Ours is a union divided between those who agree with Obama that “the worst of the recession is over” and the far larger number in deep pain that this president is bent on ignoring.
http://www.thenation.com/article/158037/hogwash-mr-president
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 12:58 (fourteen years ago)
the "spending freeze" would be v small potatoes from what i understand, morbs - it's PR
also obama didn't insist that low test scores HAVE HOBBLED our economy but that they WILL HOBBLE it; i wonder if scheer disagrees that investing in public schools is a good idea? is that really the argument he wants to have?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 13:09 (fourteen years ago)
no, i think whether you should appoint the felonious cocksuckers who held us up as your financial braintrust is the argument he wants to have.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 13:11 (fourteen years ago)
also this was the prez who wdn't make empty gestures a top priority, is what the Kool-Aid made y'all say.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 13:12 (fourteen years ago)
i shouldn't even get involved, it's just too stupid
it's columns like this one that have turned me off The Nation for good - "obama didn't spend his state of the union address lambasting wall street!" *rends shirt* .. like, really dude? this is what you're spending your time writing? in what universe would that have happened?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 13:13 (fourteen years ago)
at least Wall St will be under water in 40 years.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 13:18 (fourteen years ago)
Why now? It is an absurd demarcation to freeze spending when so many remain unemployed
this really sums up the disingenuous naivety so adored by scheer, maddow and their ilk - "Why?? I don't get it!!" - well, you're the fucking journalist why don't you find out and explain it to us - oh wait, that would require trying to understand the situation
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 13:18 (fourteen years ago)
It's not just test scores but the perverse incentives that steer the best and the brightest away from value creating industries to value manipulating ones.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 27 January 2011 14:14 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/health_reform_repeal_0
LAST week we and other bloggers wondered why, in polling on the Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare"), most people opposed the law, but few wanted to repeal it. The question was whether the discrepancy was explained by the large number of people who said they opposed the law because they felt it "didn't go far enough". Via Ezra Klein, the Kaiser Family Foundation has finally done the poll we were waiting for, teasing out exactly what it was that people wanted to do about health-care reform, and it seems a 47-43 plurality either wants to keep the Affordable Care Act or expand it, rather than repeal it. According to the poll, 28% want to keep the law and expand it, 19% want to keep it as is, 20% want to repeal the law and replace it with Republican-sponsored alternatives (which presently have the advantage of not existing in any specific form), and 23% want to repeal it flat-out.
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 15:42 (fourteen years ago)
Tracer, how about the universe where Dem presidents spoke about the captains of finance like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU&feature=related
Even Jon Stewart recognized thta Bam's 'Sputnik moment' to-do list was a joke.
The columns that turned me off The Nation for good are "Presidents won't come more liberal than Obama, let's beg for scraps and shut up about the wars and unlimited detentions."
also, lol at Scheer = Maddow
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 15:54 (fourteen years ago)
i'm not getting into this argument again with you morbius
i know your position: obama sux
you know my position: presidents always sux
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:07 (fourteen years ago)
that's my position as well! argument over
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:21 (fourteen years ago)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:27 (fourteen years ago)
hugglez
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
have we done this? trumka at the national press club -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HzuQnafkM
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
if the US is serious about manufacturing and export-led growth then unions might get a seat upgrade at the Big Table of Evil... just a thought
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:32 (fourteen years ago)
Trumka's great. that speech is old tho (and he's gone now isn't he? or am I thinking of someone else)
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:34 (fourteen years ago)
that FDR speech never gets old
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 January 2011 16:36 (fourteen years ago)
shakey you might be thinking of andy stern
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:05 (fourteen years ago)
right. thx
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)
Shakey that speech is from last week!
andy stern was prez of SEIU - v v v different.. in fact the AFL-CIO kind of hates SEIO's guts
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
not that Trumka doesn't, ah, reuse some themes
Too old to work and too young to die has real meaning when you don't have a Goldman Sachs partnership to live off.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
SEIU, sorry
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:33 (fourteen years ago)
um that speech is from 2010
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:34 (fourteen years ago)
it's 2011 btw
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
Where does the time go?
― Mr. Fart Pop Bass (Phil D.), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:37 (fourteen years ago)
At the National Press Club on 1/19/11, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka challenges leaders to invest in making the country "the America we want to be."
― max, Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:43 (fourteen years ago)
http://afl-cio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/sp01192011.cfm
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:44 (fourteen years ago)
the american people are demanding a bipartisan agreement on what year it is
― mookieproof, Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:46 (fourteen years ago)
okay whatever. the date on that youtube says 2010
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:54 (fourteen years ago)
ah. weird
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
http://i.min.us/jexm48.png
― max, Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
AAAAAAnyway i linked to it because it seems like the kind of speech a lotta people wanted obama to make
greenpernt, brooklyn
― buzza, Thursday, 27 January 2011 18:00 (fourteen years ago)
Trumka kind of amazingly does NOT have any annoying pronunciation tics even at high amplification. No wet lip-smaking or phlegmy sounds despite his otherwise thickened voice and front-of-the-mouth-ness. I'm impressed.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 27 January 2011 18:18 (fourteen years ago)
People who enunciate like they can't get their face out of the way usually have, like, spitting problems and wet-sounding lisps. Kindly absent in this case.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 27 January 2011 18:26 (fourteen years ago)
so allen stanford got the crap kicked out of him in prison
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/allen_stanfords_case_highlights_prison_violence.php
i'm usually the one arguing against blue-sky thinking or angry moralism, but more and more i think that ending the punitive state ought to the a-1 civil rights AND budgetary issues people focus on.
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:15 (fourteen years ago)
Huh. I figured he get on like Albert Brooks in "Out of Sight." Oh, wait, that was a movie.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
^^^^^^YES xp
its a shame that it takes a famous billionaire to raise awareness even a little bit, but for real the prison industrial complex (and death penalty) is, for me personally, the most shameful in-the-open civil rights issue in our country. just a colossal waste, in every respect
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:21 (fourteen years ago)
but, like the drug war, its something no sane politician would touch with a barge pole.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
stanford was in a private prison too.
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)
...aren't they supposed to be worse?
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:25 (fourteen years ago)
i've never seen numbers but i bet it's a wash. i'm always slightly stunned we even have private prisons. what a wonderful business to be in, the incentives must be so well aligned.
two good sources of info on this are charles davis & the criminal justice blog at change.org, and radley balko at reason.com & theagitator (if you can get over the libertarian stuff)
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:27 (fourteen years ago)
reason kinda has a stopped-clock thing going on anyway, at least from what i remember of it (got my dad a subscription years ago). they're usually not the ron paul wingnut variety, iirc? plus when it comes to the drug war and fuck tha police i tend to be p libertarian
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
do (average) libertarians want all prisons to be private or is that one of the, like, two things they reserve for the state?
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:38 (fourteen years ago)
honestly have no idea, but i'd think that it falls under the purview of govt in a libertarian schema? inasmuch as govt's job is to mediate conflicts, and little else
(mostly basing that on the very little of Anarchy State and Utopia I was able to get through)
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
balo is terrific on civil-rights & police/surveillance/security/prison state
― max, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)
balko
i'll bet there are differences of opinion. some think that law enforcement ought to be the ONLY thing the state does.
but then again there was a hilarious episode last year where some randian tea-party figure was caught up in a controversy regarding a county child protection agency (i honestly don't remember the details at all), and the word from the local t-p hq was, why does the state have to do this? shouldn't there be some kind of private, voluntary group that you could employ to look after someone's kids if you thought they were in danger?? o_O
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
see i tend to think of the Reason libertarians as being a little more....reasonable than T-P types.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
some think that law enforcement ought to be the ONLY thing the state does.
this was my understanding
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
Fuckin' amendments, how do they work?
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken., are jointly introducing a “resolution that would amend the Constitution”—not an amendment—to deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States “unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen.”The rest of the statement, with the language of the resolution forthcoming:“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” said Sen. Vitter. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” said Sen. Paul. “This legislation makes it necessary that everyone follow the rules, and goes through same process to become a U.S. citizen.”Vitter and Paul do not believe that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, either by its language or intent. This resolution makes clear that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship… “
The rest of the statement, with the language of the resolution forthcoming:
“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” said Sen. Vitter. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”
“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” said Sen. Paul. “This legislation makes it necessary that everyone follow the rules, and goes through same process to become a U.S. citizen.”
Vitter and Paul do not believe that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, either by its language or intent. This resolution makes clear that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship… “
Misunderstanding how the Constitution works and usurping the role of the judiciary all in one step! Nice work, fuckbags!
― Mr. Fart Pop Bass (Phil D.), Thursday, 27 January 2011 21:21 (fourteen years ago)
Colbert is pretty OTM about "Feeling the news at you". All the big name news people on TV act SO APPALLED and EMOTIONALLY INVESTED in every last bit of news. For instance every time I see Megyn Kelly on FOX she is making this face like she is watching a dog eat cat shit.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 27 January 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
lol that will never go anywhere
similar thing going up for a vote in Arizona right now that explicitly violates the 14th Amendment
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
or instance every time I see Megyn Kelly on FOX she is making this face like she is watching a dog eat cat shit.
loled at this
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 January 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)
better than Hannity, who makes a face like he's watching FDR eat his face.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 January 2011 21:39 (fourteen years ago)
Same MK expression works for 'watching a black man being President'.
― champagne in the arse (suzy), Thursday, 27 January 2011 21:39 (fourteen years ago)
for real the prison industrial complex (and death penalty) is, for me personally, the most shameful in-the-open civil rights issue in our country. just a colossal waste, in every respect
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:21 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yes def
― *kl0p* (deej), Thursday, 27 January 2011 22:38 (fourteen years ago)
a lot of libertarians don't seem to have a problem with privitized jails. makes some sense, seeing as such libertarians also think that there shouldn't be government cops (or at least not as many).
― i want to eat unicorn meat (Eisbaer), Thursday, 27 January 2011 22:54 (fourteen years ago)
Something Zen koany about this - first there is a state, then there is no state, then there is
... what exactly is the state enforcing if there are no laws?
IANAL (not a libertarian)
― Brakhage, Thursday, 27 January 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)
Gahhhh doublepost apologies, browser acting up
well here's something
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/140811-senate-ends-practice-of-secret-holds
The four Senators voting against the resolution were Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R- S.C.), and John Ensign (R-Nev.)
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 23:32 (fourteen years ago)
wtf Rand Paul
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 23:37 (fourteen years ago)
I mean I hate him, but I don't really see how this is consistent with his views about govt
i think his views about everything are basically "i do what i want"
― goole, Thursday, 27 January 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
how dare you limit my will to make secret holds!! statist!
cartman.gif
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 January 2011 23:39 (fourteen years ago)
Obama sez legalizing drugs is a topic worthy of debate
gotta be the first time a sitting prez has ever said something like that. altho it's not gonna signal a policy shift or anything.
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 28 January 2011 00:02 (fourteen years ago)
Trifecta for Paul today:
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants to end all foreign assistance, including aid to Israel.Paul, a Republican newly elected in Kentucky, was on CNN Wednesday outlining where he would cut the $500 billion in government spending he says is critical to sustaining the U.S. economy. His focus was on the departments of energy, education and housing.Interviewer Wolf Blitzer then asked about foreign assistance, asking if he wanted to end “all foreign aid.” Paul said yes, and Blitzer asked him about aid to Israel.“Well, I think what you have to do is you have to look,” Paul said. “When you send foreign aid, you actually [send] quite a bit to Israel’s enemies. Islamic nations around Israel get quite a bit of foreign aid, too.“You have to ask yourself, are we funding an arms race on both sides? I have a lot of sympathy and respect for Israel as a democratic nation, as a, you know, a fountain of peace and a fountain of democracy within the Middle East.”Blitzer pressed, “End all foreign aid including the foreign aid to Israel as well. Is that right?” he asked.Paul answered, “Yes.”
Interviewer Wolf Blitzer then asked about foreign assistance, asking if he wanted to end “all foreign aid.” Paul said yes, and Blitzer asked him about aid to Israel.
“Well, I think what you have to do is you have to look,” Paul said. “When you send foreign aid, you actually [send] quite a bit to Israel’s enemies. Islamic nations around Israel get quite a bit of foreign aid, too.
“You have to ask yourself, are we funding an arms race on both sides? I have a lot of sympathy and respect for Israel as a democratic nation, as a, you know, a fountain of peace and a fountain of democracy within the Middle East.”
Blitzer pressed, “End all foreign aid including the foreign aid to Israel as well. Is that right?” he asked.
Paul answered, “Yes.”
― Mr. Fart Pop Bass (Phil D.), Friday, 28 January 2011 01:17 (fourteen years ago)
I know its good that Obama said even that but I'll never understand how america trusts people to use guns but not drugs responsibly.
― Popper, Friday, 28 January 2011 01:19 (fourteen years ago)
― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Friday, 28 January 2011 01:30 (fourteen years ago)
choom gang rides again
― buzza, Friday, 28 January 2011 01:32 (fourteen years ago)
“Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”
Um. The only process I went through was to be born in the USA. Seems to me this is the process he wants to deny to certain infants and grant to others. What's this "same process" load of shit?
“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” said Sen. Paul.
Damn all these newborns who don't respect our immigration laws!!
― Aimless, Friday, 28 January 2011 01:32 (fourteen years ago)
lol it reminds me of how people are accusing obama of not being born in this country as if he would actually himself know if he hadn't been.
― omar little, Friday, 28 January 2011 01:34 (fourteen years ago)
Citizenship is a privilege
We're finding out alot of things we thought were rights are actually privileges. Where's George Carlin?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 January 2011 02:49 (fourteen years ago)
o_Ohttp://www.teapartynewsbrief.com/
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 28 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)
is that a Teabagger from Second Life?
― i want to eat unicorn meat (Eisbaer), Friday, 28 January 2011 03:45 (fourteen years ago)
ok i can't resist. sarah palin apparently believes that the cost of sputnik is what led to the fall of the soviet union. i can find no other way to parse this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=floM6Idv94c
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 28 January 2011 14:28 (fourteen years ago)
she is correct, though, that we need more spudnuts moments in America. <3 u sarah!
― 23 24 (Z S), Friday, 28 January 2011 15:53 (fourteen years ago)
Yes, she has it, mom and pop diners will conquer chinese ingenuity.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 28 January 2011 15:57 (fourteen years ago)
Obviously the cost of the Russian space program in the 1950s is what led to the Soviet Union's collapse decades later. Palin is clearly a brilliant historian and economist.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:07 (fourteen years ago)
Although I think Obama using "Sputnik" in the speech was less than brilliant, and I see that folks elsewhere are wasting time figuring out who first said "win the future". Apparently it was neither Obama or Gingrich. Shouldn't they be discussing the reports on the financial crisis instead?
The Democratic report on the financial crisis calls out Geithner, but Obama will never make him resign (or if he did, he'd just replace him with another soft-on-Wall Street misdeeds type).
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:12 (fourteen years ago)
"Israel as a democratic nation, as a, you know, a fountain of peace and a fountain of democracy"
rong again, eh
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
fountains generally have a concrete wall around them tho right
― goole, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
It's funny how the Right always find marginal issues to distract their base from central economic issues every cycle; flag burning, illegal immigration, Red scares, the drug war, etc... Ok, well maybe it's not that funny.
― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
incomprehensibly annoyed by that video which i guess makes me a sucker.
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
whereas Bill Clinton had V-chips and school uniforms, and Bam has fed-pay freezes
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:20 (fourteen years ago)
One of the commenters on that video called Sarah "Arctic Snooki."
― Glorified Lolcat (Dan Peterson), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
tbf the central economic issues are pretty complicated, most people don't understand them and they don't play well on cable tv. on the macro level the economic discussion can't boil down to anything beyond 'the economy is doing well' or 'the economy is not doing well' until the average citizen has a decent grasp of economics. whereas flag burning is something that anyone can argue about.
― iatee, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:25 (fourteen years ago)
Still to pander to the Right, though, not their base.
I think Obama using "Sputnik" in the speech was less than brilliant
http://www.kyvl.org/kids/p4_use/ForReal_Test/nytimes/laika1.jpg
Our future!
― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
We will soon send dogs and chimps on high-speed trains.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
i think trying to spin an analogy between china/india now and russia then was pretty weak for all sorts of reasons, and even though i totally do want a "sputnik moment" i'm also sure we're not getting one, at least not as conveniently as we did before. no matter how well china and india do it's not going to create the real urgency the ussr managed to create. so yeah through that whole part of the speech i was in yeah-right mode. but lol turning it into a "obama wants to spend lots of money! like the COMMIES did! (before reagan proved marx wrong)" thing.
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:30 (fourteen years ago)
Well, since we can't demonize Russia anymore, and China won't suffice, let's pick on the poor.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
the correct term is "spudnut" alfred
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 28 January 2011 16:32 (fourteen years ago)
whatta spudnut
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 28 January 2011 16:33 (fourteen years ago)
Taliban claims to have take out Blackwater Afghanistan head.
― An Artily Shot Sesame Street (Eazy), Friday, 28 January 2011 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
er, taken out.
well this ought to illustrate something... (this is my own transcript from about 1:30)
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133293535/Senate-Tea-Party-Caucus-Holds-First-Meeting
Tea Party WDC member Lisa Miller: Would you be willing to present a bill that has at least 1.4 trillion in cuts per annum? Because if you could just... put forward something that allows us to see that we can reach a balanced budget this year or the next year...
Rand Paul: Mm-hm
Lisa Miller: ...the Tea Party would be much more energized.
(narration)
Rand Paul: We just are thinking that through, if I put down the things that have to be cut this year to get, to cut 1.5 trillion, um, it would probably kill the idea, because everybody starts realizing the pain --
Lisa Miller [pleading]: Try, try, try, we will back you up.
― goole, Friday, 28 January 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)
making an analogy b/w China/India now and the USSR then is actually pretty easy (even for the masses) ... namely, that the Chinese and the Indians are threatening American jobs and livelihoods (and both have nukes). you won't hear that made by this or any other White House, though, b/c that would necessitate a tougher stance on offshoring -- which is not forthcoming from either party at this point.
so it's on to flag burning and balanced budget amendments.
― i want to eat unicorn meat (Eisbaer), Friday, 28 January 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)
i didn't think china+india were supposed to = the ussr in the "sputnik moment" analogy, it was the recession itself that is the threat. it was a pretty dumb analogy.
― goole, Friday, 28 January 2011 20:37 (fourteen years ago)
Was 'the Russians are stealing our jobs' a bug part of the Red Scare?
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Friday, 28 January 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)
bug = big. sorry
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Friday, 28 January 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
you're right, it was the recession. i was confusing the line with a bunch of other stuff in the speech that did, mildly and a little uncomfortably, use china/india as an economic threat to be responded to with Greatness. which, sure, is a case you can make, and maybe a useful one, but it's still not the ussr. american administrations could use the ussr as a bogeyman coming not just for american jobs but for american lives and the entire american concept of government and history. they could frame the east-west conflict as an epic end-of-history battle. (and incidentally the bolsheviks could do the same, in fact had been doing so since before 1917.) that really helped. we're not going to have that again.
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 28 January 2011 20:46 (fourteen years ago)
Ordinary people seem to have very little room in their brains for politics, what with all the other stuff milling around in their daily thoughts. Therefore they stubbornly resist assimilating any new ideas. To make contact with such people, you have to frame every new thing in terms of old familiar things, or they get lost at once and tune out.
This sad fact leads politicians to analogies like Obama's "sputnik moment". He was groping for an old tune he could set a few new words to. Really gifted politicians have a flair for this sort of super-simple analogy. Obama's was too cerebral and not nearly visceral enough, and so probably failed to connect with 80% of his audience.
The Tea Party pols, although they are pure horrors in so many ways, know how to make stupid, but simple, analogies that people garsp. Obama has no aptitude for that type of shit as soon as he steps outside of emulating civil rights era rhetoric. His gut doesn't sing that sort of tune.
― Aimless, Friday, 28 January 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)
Whereas FDR was great at that shit
― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Friday, 28 January 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
Ordinary people seem to have very little room in their brains for politics
Thank goodness! It's the Beltway chattering class that's full of rubes.
Therefore they stubbornly resist assimilating any new ideas.
I don't understand how no room for politics leads to difficulty with the assimilation of ideas. You read Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, etc? A constant diet of that shit accustoms one to regard any commodity as points on a scoreboard.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 28 January 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
And some writers I see keep harping on Reagan and his simplistic messages and his use of repetition (no matter the real problems and the fact that Reagan was not addressing them) to reach large numbers of voters("ordinary people") as something that Obama has not learned
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 January 2011 21:37 (fourteen years ago)
so the issue is wanting ordinary people to get educated (politically and vocationally) but without blaming them for financial and political messes created by ivy league Wall Streeters, and discussed in ineffective ways by the chattering classes
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 January 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
Not just Reagan. Look at Huey Long and "every man a king". George Wallace and "pointy-headed intellectuals who can't even park their bicycles straight". FDR and his fireside chats. Even Nixon had a decent feel for this messaging thing, although he wasn't a natural at it.
I despise what Reagan did and stood for, but I grant he earned that fawning sobriquet Great Communicator. You want to see the opposite, look at Gerald Ford or Daddy George Bush. They were better presidents than Reagan in many ways, but fell flat in people's minds. Reagan left a kind of radioactive glow behind him.
― Aimless, Friday, 28 January 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)
indeed ... this has been my point for the past, i dunno, 16 years and counting. it's got to be some sort of crime to have such a bunch of ignoramuses as "pundits."
― i want to eat unicorn meat (Eisbaer), Saturday, 29 January 2011 01:51 (fourteen years ago)
One of Digby's commenters points out that, as always, Palin trips over her own dick and ends up making the opposite point that she intended:
Palin's quirky invocation of the "Spudnut Shop" here in Richland Washington as an example of American "can-doism" is far more ironic than you and most of your readers likely realize. The fact is, the town of Richland was literally built by the federal government as a part of the Manhattan Project. All of the houses that surround the Spudnut shop were built by the Army. To this day, the only employer in Richland of any consequence is the Department of Energy and the contractors that work on DoE contracts at the Hanford site, just north of Richland. As a result, virtually all of the Spudnut shop's customers are paid by tax dollars. Those that aren't are retirees, drawing government pensions and social security. Were it not for government spending, the Spudnut shop would be bankrupt in a week.
The fact is, the town of Richland was literally built by the federal government as a part of the Manhattan Project. All of the houses that surround the Spudnut shop were built by the Army. To this day, the only employer in Richland of any consequence is the Department of Energy and the contractors that work on DoE contracts at the Hanford site, just north of Richland. As a result, virtually all of the Spudnut shop's customers are paid by tax dollars. Those that aren't are retirees, drawing government pensions and social security.
Were it not for government spending, the Spudnut shop would be bankrupt in a week.
― Mr. Fart Pop Bass (Phil D.), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:01 (fourteen years ago)
The pundit class exists to keep the political culture afloat, same as showbiz media. It's permanent 69ing.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:03 (fourteen years ago)
It's permanent 69ing.
i should be a pundit obvs
― mookieproof, Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:14 (fourteen years ago)
A clench-jawed 69ing that leaves you with blue balls and VD, more like.
― lurking off (lou), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:22 (fourteen years ago)
and when you roll over your male date looks like Peggy Noonan.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:23 (fourteen years ago)
or your female date looks like Krauthammer.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.busybusybusy.com/images/charleskrauthammer725g.jpg
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:30 (fourteen years ago)
lol i have met krauthammer and indeed been in possession of his wallet
― mookieproof, Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:32 (fourteen years ago)
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/08/9361.jpg?key=1249838824
"How big a wallet are we talking about here?"
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 29 January 2011 02:33 (fourteen years ago)
Protesting the Koch Brothers (bankrollers for wingnuts) at their retreat
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/us/politics/31koch.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24
Obscure NY Times news that will never reach far...
― curmudgeon, Monday, 31 January 2011 14:30 (fourteen years ago)
Washington Monthly re puff pieces on Paul Ryan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027758.php
For a while, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was so beloved by the media establishment that he referred to political reporters as his "base." In time, as McCain adopted new personas, his relationship with the media strained, and his "base" moved on.
As it turns out, they fell into the arms of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a right-wing lawmaker reporters in D.C. love to love.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 31 January 2011 15:51 (fourteen years ago)
Oh thanks, Floria.
― carson dial, Monday, 31 January 2011 20:17 (fourteen years ago)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-part-of-health-care-law-unconstitutional.php
fml
― 23 24 (Z S), Monday, 31 January 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)
Doesnt this sort of thing effectively destroy the only issue the republicans were going to run against other than the budget?
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Monday, 31 January 2011 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
The GOP also promised fiscal responsibility.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 31 January 2011 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
On NPR this morning they quoted Boehner as saying that it was time for the Obama White House to be "adult" re fiscal responsibility. "We gave away the store to the rich via tax cuts and via lack of regulation and falsely conducted wars and now we want you to slash middle and working class programs to restore a balanced budget, ok tks bye"
― curmudgeon, Monday, 31 January 2011 20:51 (fourteen years ago)
On the Flo Rida court Health care decision-- no surprise: Roger Vinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, agreed with the 26 state-government plaintiffs
― curmudgeon, Monday, 31 January 2011 20:52 (fourteen years ago)
where does this bullshit "adult conversation"/"be adult" meme amongst the chattering classes come from and how do i destroy it.
― Clay, Monday, 31 January 2011 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
it comes from the constant suppression of the obvious truth -- they are children
― goole, Monday, 31 January 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
New York State Senate does little to combat the notion that the GOP is made up of and exists for old white men:
In the new session, 30 of the Senate’s standing committees will be led by Republicans; three will be led by Democrats. Twenty-nine will be headed by men; four will be headed by women. Nineteen will be led by senators from upstate; 14 will be led by senators from New York City and its suburbs.But all the committee chairmanships share at least one characteristic in common . . . “They’re all white,” said State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., Democrat of the Bronx. “Everybody’s white.”...The current group of 32 Republicans does not count a member of a minority in its ranks.
But all the committee chairmanships share at least one characteristic in common . . . “They’re all white,” said State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., Democrat of the Bronx. “Everybody’s white.”...The current group of 32 Republicans does not count a member of a minority in its ranks.
― Mr. Fart Pop Bass (Phil D.), Monday, 31 January 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Monday, 31 January 2011 20:32 (1 hour ago)
no, it just kicks the issue up to the Supreme Court.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 31 January 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
re "adult" meme: was it not david brooks (so yes, please destroy), like late last summer/ early fall maybe? and he was definitely applying it as equally to GOP's "omg u guise lets tax cut our way into prosperity lol!!" as he was to Dems iirc.
― ________ (will), Monday, 31 January 2011 21:57 (fourteen years ago)
also, am I a sociopath for saying that i do think we need to have a umm 'realistic' convo about middle class entitlements, and that I would really like to have seen Obama get out in front on some of the bipartisan deficit commissions long term proposals re SS, Medicare etc
― ________ (will), Monday, 31 January 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
Dem 2012 convention in Charlotte! Perfect spot to nominate aerosmith/morbius ticket.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 February 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
No, Morbs: I'm on the ticket. You're gonna be my secretary of defense.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 February 2011 17:28 (fourteen years ago)
sorry, we need star power at the top
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 February 2011 17:30 (fourteen years ago)
I got the brains and the looks: let's make lots of money.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 February 2011 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
also, am I a sociopath for saying that i do think we need to have a umm 'realistic' convo about middle class entitlements, and that I would really like to have seen Obama get out in front on some of the bipartisan deficit commissions long term proposals re SS, Medicare etc- (will)
Ok, I'll bite. Why do "realistic" conversations on this always entail cutting middle class entitlements and ignoring that Social Security is in surplus for the next 40 years. Also, currently workers pay social security payroll taxes on up to $106,800 of their salary. To ensure the long-term viability of Social Security past 40 years out, couldn't we rather have people pay social security taxes on income above $106,800,rather than cut benefits for the middle class? Social Security "realists" in the press and on Capitol Hill of course would never talk about raising payroll taxes though. God forbid, the wealthy have to pay more.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 18:30 (fourteen years ago)
"Social Security "realists" in the press and on Capitol Hill of course would never talk about raising payroll taxes though."
eh yeah, i should have been more clear: along with some retooling of SS & Medicare, the defense budget would definitely need to go under the knife and the Bush tax cuts need to expire, etc. and i would DEFINITELY support raising payroll taxes on those earning 6 figs+. if we're going to concede that deficits do matter (which i do, for a whole host of reasons ranging from national security to ensuring economic stability here and abroad), then i think there will need to be some consideration for reducing SS benefits for higher income individuals, and as our life expectancy goes up, very gradually raising the retirement age for full benefits (with hardship exemptions for physical laborers, or those with other health/ physical issues obv). i think these things are very doable, and maybe seeing Obama take the lead on some of these initiatives would give him/ the Dems more cover when they push for retiring them for good when they expire. again.
― ________ (will), Tuesday, 1 February 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
I see nothing to be gained by Obama taking the lead on what is in effect, accepting the Republican pov (handouts to the upper class, no penalties for Wall Street; and then making the middle class and working class accept reduced benefits in order to solve the debt and deficit problems). The important things are "not very doable."
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 16:38 (fourteen years ago)
Also, the only proposals out of that deficit commission that interested me were the minority ones. The "bipartisan" ones came from folks who no matter their political party have always believed that the middle class and working class should have to do the majority of the suffering.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 16:44 (fourteen years ago)
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7500/image003l.gif
― goole, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 16:46 (fourteen years ago)
Glenn Beck damages any theory that graph could produce.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:08 (fourteen years ago)
mitch daniels, sane?
― max, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:09 (fourteen years ago)
yeah and how is bachmann really un-mormon?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:11 (fourteen years ago)
One word of praise for Huckabee: when all that Wright stuff broke in 2008, he was one of about three Republicans to step forward and defend Obama.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:14 (fourteen years ago)
Huckabee is the funniest/worst TV interviewer ever, so um points for that too
― bien-pensant vibe (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:17 (fourteen years ago)
His show isn't bad: a PG version of A Face in the Crowd. Once in a while he'll play bass.
Politics are beside the point. In essence his show is a Southern conservative revue.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:19 (fourteen years ago)
I've never seen his show. I know he's pretty corny, and I keep anyone overly religious at arm's length, but following the 2008 campaign, I really didn't mind him. I still think Romney/Huckabee is their best chance.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 23:23 (fourteen years ago)
We've argued that; I know I'm in the minority there.
yeah but Huckabee had Jon Voight on to deliver that speech that is as vitriolic and disgusting as anything that's ever been on Beck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:38 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, that's pretty vile.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:43 (fourteen years ago)
Like I say, I don't get his show where I am, and can't imagine watching even if I did. Voight's rambling is idiocy, but Huckabee does say at the beginning that he doesn't know what Voight's going to say. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's telling the truth; based on my sense of him during the campaign, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The clip basically ends with Voight--any idea of what Huckabee said afterwards?
It's so hard for me to watch Voight these days. Midnight Cowboy is one of my favourite movies; I can't believe he's travelled a path that led him from that to this.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:51 (fourteen years ago)
It's acting, my boy.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:55 (fourteen years ago)
Voight had already gone off the rails as a racist maniac before the Huckster rolled out the red carpet for him.
Huck is a very likable guy, much more than pretty much all of his rivals for the nomination, but his likability is just window dressing.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:56 (fourteen years ago)
xpost: I understand that, but I wouldn't assume his politics were the same in 1969, and that he was such a great actor he was able to mask that. I don't believe the Jon Voight of 2011 would get within 100 miles of a movie like Midnight Cowboy.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
huckabee is a truly evil and vile man dude, and not even that interesting
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Thursday, 3 February 2011 00:59 (fourteen years ago)
man-dude
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:01 (fourteen years ago)
Here's the clip from the campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ
To me, that meant something. At that particular moment, he could have piled on like everyone else--he hadn't a reason in the world not to--and he didn't. And in the last minute of that clip, he went much farther than just about any Republican would go even today.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:08 (fourteen years ago)
even the actors with whose politics I agree are douches.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:09 (fourteen years ago)
― clemenza, Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:08 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark
How soon things changed after november 2008, huh?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:17 (fourteen years ago)
That's what I don't know; I've barely heard a word about Huckabee since the election. If he's out there complaining about HRC and complaining about the debt, that's fine, he's positioning himself to run. If he's sounding like Voight these days, that would be disappointing.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:21 (fourteen years ago)
what if he invites Voight on his show and lets him spew bullshit without calling him out on it? i mean, i wouldn't invite some asshole over to my house and let them ruin a get together with a bunch of bullshit, and i don't even have a tv show.
― Z S, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:25 (fourteen years ago)
That's why I asked what he said afterwards; the clip doesn't make that clear. I mean, I'm sure he didn't call him out, but there are ways to indicate that you're not copacetic without saying so.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPRBEcoCT9Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=209s
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:32 (fourteen years ago)
1 channel wasn't enough for omnichristianvids.
guys, forget Midnight Cowboy, Jon Voight won his Oscar for a film that righties reviled as Hollywood pinko antiwar crap.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:35 (fourteen years ago)
Voight honestly doesn't seem "all there" imo.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:39 (fourteen years ago)
Thanks, Matt. I can live with Huckabee's response. The worst thing is that he almost tries to save Voight from himself--I too would rather he confront Voight directly, but that's just not gonna happen--and the sucking up at the end makes me squirm. But as to what he says about Obama and Clinton, that's about as good as it gets right now from a Republican actively seeking office; saying that he doesn't believe Obama is trying to hurt country actually counts as something of a grand gesture on the right these days. All in all, between the Voight clip and the the one from during the campaign, I give greater weight to the campaign clip.
Yeah, Coming Home, too--and Catch-22, and Conrack, which I've never seen.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:41 (fourteen years ago)
maybe I'm bitter because he compared my girlfriend and my nephew to defective automobiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoCnxnStMpU
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:46 (fourteen years ago)
Hippies love drugs! OMG LOL
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:50 (fourteen years ago)
Not much I can say; I'm just trying to place him on the spectrum of what's out there, and I think there's much worse than him. (I actually thought the retiring hippies line was kind of funny in an absurdist way.)
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
I was on a road trip in December and I tuned into the rightwing talk station and the replacement host for Mark Levin would drop hippie jokes every 15 seconds. I was like wtf where does this guy see hippies all the time?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:55 (fourteen years ago)
goole where is that sanity/Mormonism graph from?
― totally small truffles (Abbbottt), Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:56 (fourteen years ago)
Is Gingrich farther to the right on the mormonism scale because he's had 3 blond wives?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 February 2011 01:59 (fourteen years ago)
Here's a Levin clip I saved from the campaign--hilarious! I don't know the exact airdate, but it was a point towards the end of the campaign when it was starting to be clear that Obama was going to win. Levin was melting down nightly.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 February 2011 02:01 (fourteen years ago)
Holy shit Jon Voight, he read that shit like an insane kidnapper reading a ransom note.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Thursday, 3 February 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)
Speaking of ghouls, Rummy's back, toting a memoir.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 February 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)
― http://www.wiltonandnoble.com/images/_lib/small-truffles-friends-cow-5008-225-1277740884000.jpg (Abbbottt), Wednesday, February 2, 2011 7:56 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
i don't know exactly! i got it off jonathan chait's blog
― goole, Thursday, 3 February 2011 03:42 (fourteen years ago)
Wouldn't expect any more/less from the producer of the Baby Geniuses movies
― gallagher 3 (latebloomer), Thursday, 3 February 2011 16:11 (fourteen years ago)
sorry, the star of the second Baby Geniuses movie
― gallagher 3 (latebloomer), Thursday, 3 February 2011 16:20 (fourteen years ago)
wait, nm i was right. anyway the point was: fuck that guy.
he was admittedly amazing in anaconda.
― gallagher 3 (latebloomer), Thursday, 3 February 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
omg Rumsfeld's memoir is actually called "Known and Unknown" wtf
― bien-pensant vibe (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 February 2011 22:55 (fourteen years ago)
No doubt he dug an elbow into his ghost writer's groin and cackled, "Ain't that a knee slapper?!"
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 February 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)
laughed pretty hard at that
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 3 February 2011 23:00 (fourteen years ago)
Mr. Rumsfeld’s memoir plays a fast and loose game of dodge ball with what are now “known knowns” and “known unknowns” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The tedious, self-serving volume is filled with efforts to blame others — most notably the C.I.A., the State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority (in particular George Tenet, Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice and L. Paul Bremer III) — for misjudgments made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the failure to contain an insurgency there that metastasized for years. It is a book that suffers from many of the same flaws that led the administration into what George Packer of The New Yorker has called “a needlessly deadly” undertaking — that is, cherry-picked data, unexamined assumptions and an unwillingness to re-examine past decisions.
still an asshole
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 3 February 2011 23:23 (fourteen years ago)
absolutely vile
― bien-pensant vibe (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 February 2011 23:25 (fourteen years ago)
So the wimpy Dems are going to give in to the Republicans on the budget cuts the Republicans want in order to raise the debt ceiling, right? Instead of cutting corporate farm subsidies or wasteful defense spending.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 February 2011 15:12 (fourteen years ago)
no, surely they will do what they've made very clear they have no interest in doing, ever.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 February 2011 15:24 (fourteen years ago)
Morbius OTM as always.
Took a 5-day internet break, it was pretty good for my sanity. Still, its nice to hear US politics is as stupid as always!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 4 February 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)
This fuckin' guy.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul was the sole "no" vote Thursday night on a measure that would make it a federal crime to aim a handheld laser pointer at an aircraft.The measure, offered by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as an amendment to a measure on funding the Federal Aviation Administration, passed on a 96-to-1 vote, with three senators not present. It would call for anyone who knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft to face fines or a prison term of up to five years.Paul told reporters after Thursday's vote that he believed the laser-pointer issue was one best handled by the states, not the federal government."There are a lot of states that already have laws, and I think states ought to take care of it," Paul said.The laser-pointer vote marked the second time in the past week that Paul voted "no" on a measure supported by the vast majority of his Senate colleagues. Last Thursday, Paul joined with fellow Senate Tea Party Caucus members Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) as well as Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to oppose a rule change that would end the practice of secret holds. That measure passed 92-to-4.While the 112th Congress is only one month old, Paul's early "no" votes echo the voting record of his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has frequently been the lower chamber's lone dissenter on measures that he believes overstep Congress' constitutional authority.
The measure, offered by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as an amendment to a measure on funding the Federal Aviation Administration, passed on a 96-to-1 vote, with three senators not present. It would call for anyone who knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft to face fines or a prison term of up to five years.
Paul told reporters after Thursday's vote that he believed the laser-pointer issue was one best handled by the states, not the federal government.
"There are a lot of states that already have laws, and I think states ought to take care of it," Paul said.
The laser-pointer vote marked the second time in the past week that Paul voted "no" on a measure supported by the vast majority of his Senate colleagues. Last Thursday, Paul joined with fellow Senate Tea Party Caucus members Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) as well as Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to oppose a rule change that would end the practice of secret holds. That measure passed 92-to-4.
While the 112th Congress is only one month old, Paul's early "no" votes echo the voting record of his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has frequently been the lower chamber's lone dissenter on measures that he believes overstep Congress' constitutional authority.
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Friday, 4 February 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)
i don't know if i would have voted yes either - ppl need 5 years in the joint for pointing a laser pointer at an airplane?
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Friday, 4 February 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
prisons are too empty these days
― bien-pensant vibe (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 February 2011 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
seriously
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Friday, 4 February 2011 20:06 (fourteen years ago)
Uh . . . yes? http://www.laserpointersafety.com/laser-hazards_aircraft/laser-hazards_aircraft.html
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Friday, 4 February 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)
damn i now regret removing laserpointersafety.com from my rss feed
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Friday, 4 February 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i dunno if would have voted yes either! 5 years? federal time?
― goole, Friday, 4 February 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Friday, February 4, 2011 3:12 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark
What would you suggest the Dems do? Dare the Republicans to cause a government shutdown?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 4 February 2011 23:37 (fourteen years ago)
worked last time
― bien-pensant vibe (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 February 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
practically ruined Gingrich's career
yeah I meant that seriously, maybe it's the right course of action.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 4 February 2011 23:39 (fourteen years ago)
Clinton had a spine.
― Political Unrest Stabilizes Society Yeah (Eisbaer), Saturday, 5 February 2011 00:42 (fourteen years ago)
not the body part I was thinking of
― bien-pensant vibe (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 5 February 2011 00:51 (fourteen years ago)
― Political Unrest Stabilizes Society Yeah (Eisbaer), Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:42 AM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark
nah, Clinton was the king of triangulation and compromises.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 5 February 2011 01:42 (fourteen years ago)
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 01:52 (fourteen years ago)
triangulation and compromise i.e. getting re-elected at almost any cost.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 5 February 2011 02:38 (fourteen years ago)
like all of them. ALL OF THEM.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 5 February 2011 08:47 (fourteen years ago)
So the wimpy Dems are going to give in to the Republicans on the budget cuts the Republicans want in order to raise the debt ceiling, right? Instead of cutting corporate farm subsidies or wasteful defense spending.― curmudgeon, Friday, February 4, 2011 3:12 PM (8 hours ago) BookmarkWhat would you suggest the Dems do? Dare the Republicans to cause a government shutdown?
Stakes are higher this time. Not raisin the debt ceiling could be seen by he rest of the world as a default thanks to bush doubling the US national debt by running moronically huge deficits during his term in office.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Saturday, 5 February 2011 12:21 (fourteen years ago)
thanks to bush doubling the US national debt by running moronically huge deficits during his term in office
Don't forget that Congress backed him up, with few close votes on the key bills that did the most damage. Just like the corporate cash, the blame is spread thick and wide.
― Aimless, Saturday, 5 February 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i dunno if would have voted yes either! 5 years? federal time?― goole, Friday, February 4, 2011 3:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
― goole, Friday, February 4, 2011 3:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
yeah me neither. that's just insane.
― ullr saves (gbx), Saturday, 5 February 2011 18:20 (fourteen years ago)
Instead of cutting corporate farm subsidies or wasteful defense spending.
farm subsidies are terrible but they don't eat up much of the budget.
― a nan, a bal, an anal ― (abanana), Saturday, 5 February 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)
LOL at all the ilxors standing bravely with Rand Paul! The first time someone manages to cause a plane crash with one of those lasers, five years will probably seem just about right. Although the bill calls for a fine OR jail time; I seriously doubt anyone will ever actually do time.
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 18:52 (fourteen years ago)
well i don't think rand paul had the same objections as we did, but yeah i wouldn't vote for something that could send someone to jail for something this stupid
― originoo gun kl0pper (k3vin k.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 18:54 (fourteen years ago)
it's not really stupid, it's potentially inherently dangerous and there's no real benefit to the perpetrator than being a dangerous, callous asshole -- idk how many ppl are out there pointing laser pointers at airplanes, but if one did & got caught, i wouldn't shed any tears if he got jail time
― no beans, push to fart (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 18:56 (fourteen years ago)
inherently there should be... some other word -- intensely or something, idk
― no beans, push to fart (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 18:57 (fourteen years ago)
Er, I think the point of the laser-pointer law is that laser-pointers are incorporated into the range-finding apparatus of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. Although, it seems to me that it would be a peculiar situation where anyone pointing such a missile launcher at an airliner would not be chargeable for a multitude other state and federal crimes.
― Aimless, Saturday, 5 February 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
i figured this had to be related to terrorist paranoia in some regard
― no beans, push to fart (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
No doubt it now a federal crime to conspire to point a laser at an airplane, too.
― Aimless, Saturday, 5 February 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
In the UK it is illegal to point lasers at planes - the RAF base/village where I live had someone arrested for it at last years airshow. Don't know what the maximum penalty was, but it was custodial, I believe. He was fined and made a public apology.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Saturday, 5 February 2011 19:27 (fourteen years ago)
Oh, he got 4 months http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/5212/farm-worker-jailed-for-shining-laser-pen-at-raf-tornado.html
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Saturday, 5 February 2011 19:36 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, I have friends that are professional pilots, one for Continental Airlines and one for a private fleet, and I have no problem with laws intended to disincentivize people from trying to fucking blind them when they're landing airplanes.
Simulation of temporary flash blindness where the image takes from a few seconds to a few minutes to fade away, depending on how much light entered the eye. Light level 50 μW/cm²; for example, a legal 5 mW laser pointer at 350 feet (107 m).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Runway_flashblindness_anim.gif
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 20:35 (fourteen years ago)
Er, I think the point of the laser-pointer law is that laser-pointers are incorporated into the range-finding apparatus of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.
No, the point is that even from a distance of more than a thousand feet away it can blind the pilot.
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 20:37 (fourteen years ago)
Trying to follow the logic of all of this. I'm picturing the pilot trying to depart from the aircraft. Is there some terrorist hiding in the airport terminal, shining the laser through the windows at the pilot? What would that accomplish? The plane wouldn't even leave the terminal. Or let's say they've pulled the plane out of park and are going down the runway. Is the terrorist going to have a buddy drive him down the runway next to the plane while it departs, holding this laser pointer with super-sniper accuracy, blinding his target with superhuman hand-eye coordination?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 5 February 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
the law is just about dumb assholes shining laser pointers, not terrorists
― max, Saturday, 5 February 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)
Wow, people are determined to be deliberately fucking stupid about this, aren't they? (And by "people" I mean "Adam Bruneau" here.) You don't have to shine the beam in someone's eye continuously for any period of time, you just have to hit them briefly, or hit cockpit glass to cause a blinding flash.
Here is a 2004 FAA report on tests conducted on 34 volunteer pilots using a 727 flight simulator and four levels of eye-safe laser light to assess the effects on vision:
Thirty-four pilots served as test subjects for this study. Pilot performance was assessed in a Boeing 727-200 Level C flight simulator using four eye-safe levels of visible laser light (0, 0.5, 5, and 50 µW/cm2) during four final approach maneuvers (three 30o left and one 30o right turn to final approach). Subjective responses were solicited after each trial and during an exit interview. The pilots were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = none, 2 = slight, 3 = moderate, 4 = great, and 5 = very great) the affect each laser exposure had on their ability to operate the aircraft and on their visual performance. The average subjective ratings were calculated for each exposure level and flight maneuver, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. RESULTS: Average subjective ratings for operational and visual performance were 2.93 (Range = 2.35 – 3.29; SD = 1.37) and 3.16 (Range = 2.56 – 3.62; SD = 1.30), respectively. ANOVA found statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the 0.5 µW/cm2 operational and visual performance ratings and those for the 5 and 50 µW/cm2exposures. Approximately 75% of the survey responses indicated that subjects experienced adverse visual effects resulting in some degree of operational difficulty when illuminated by low-level laser radiation.
Note: The above results came from exposures of one second, which I'm gonna hazard a guess is significantly less than Adam Bruneau's dumbshit scenario proposed above.
In recent years, the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s Vision Research Team has compiled a database containing several hundred reports involving laser illumination of military and civilian aircraft, including law enforcement and medical evacuation helicopters. Some of these incidents have resulted in reports of pilots being startled, distracted, temporarily blinded, and disoriented. While there have been documented reports of aviation accidents associated with glare and flashblindness induced by natural sunlight (10) and exposure to high-intensity artificial light sources, such as aircraft landing lights and runway approach lights (11,12), no accidents have been attributed to the illumination of crewmembers by lasers. However, given the considerable number of reported laser incidents that have resulted in visual and operational problems, the aviation accident definitely exists. Two laser illumination incidents that seriously compromised aviation safety are summarized below: • At approximately 6:30 pm PST on October 30, 1995, the first officer on Southwest Airlines flight 1367 sustained a debilitating eye injury after being irradiated by a laser beam on departure from McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, NV. The airplane was enroute from Las Vegas to San Antonio, TX, climbing through 7,000 feet MSL, on a standard instrument departure route when the incident occurred. The pilot-in-command (first-officer) reported that the laser beam sweep through the cockpit, resulting in temporary blindness and pain in his right eye, in addition to after-image effects that impaired the vision in his left eye. The pilot could not focus or interpret any instrument indications and was disoriented for several minutes requiring the captain to assume control of the aircraft (13). Note: As a result of this incident, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) placed a moratorium on outdoor laser activities in the Las Vegas area. • On November 29, 1996, a suspected laser beam illuminated a Skywest Airlines pilot during approach on flight 5410 into Los Angeles Airport (LAX). The Embraer EMB-120 was over a college campus on visual approach to LAX from Bakersfield, CA, when the incident occurred. The aircraft was on a right base leg, level at 6,000 feet MSL, when the captain was exposed to a bright light in his right eye while looking for downwind traffic through the right window. As the flight continued, the captain found it increasingly difficult to see because of the burning and tearing he was experiencing in that eye. On final approach, he relinquished control to the co-pilot who completed the landing. Examination revealed the pilot suffered multiple flash burns to his right cornea (14). Note: As a result of this incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended the FAA change the existing guidelines to protect pilots from temporary visual incapacitation and to conduct research to validate laser exposure limits.
After each scenario, the test subjects were asked to comment on what affect the laser exposure had on their visual and operational capabilities. The figure (see Figure 4) and text below summarize the subjects’ most frequently reported comments for the corresponding level of laser exposure.At the 0.5 µW/cm2 level of exposure, 38% of the subjects (n=13) described either being momentarily disturbed, briefly distracted, flashblinded, or loss of depth perception, visual contact with the runway surface and/or visual clues outside the cockpit. One subject felt the need to execute a missed approach or “go around” maneuver (i.e., aborted landing = 1, or 3%).At the 5.0 µW/cm2 level of exposure, 62% of the subjects (n=21) reported various effects that included momentary flashblindness, losing view of the runway surface, loss of depth perception, and/or brief distraction. Of these, four subjects (12%) executed “go around” maneuvers, while one subject (3%) relinquished control of the aircraft to the co-pilot, and two subjects (6%) commented that they would have aborted the landing if it were a “real-world” incident (i.e., actual and potential aborted landings = 7, or 21%).At the 50.0 µW/cm2 level of exposure, 56% of the subjects (n=19) provided comments regarding the difficulties they experienced, including having to seek shelter from the harsh light (ducking under the glare shield), momentary flashblindness resulting in the total loss of view outside the cockpit, and having to transition to instrument flight rules. Of these, four subjects (12%) executed “go around” maneuvers, while five subjects (15%) reported that they would have performed a missed approach if it were a “real-world” incident or if the duration of the laser exposure had been longer (i.e., actual and potential aborted landings = 9, or 26%).
At the 0.5 µW/cm2 level of exposure, 38% of the subjects (n=13) described either being momentarily disturbed, briefly distracted, flashblinded, or loss of depth perception, visual contact with the runway surface and/or visual clues outside the cockpit. One subject felt the need to execute a missed approach or “go around” maneuver (i.e., aborted landing = 1, or 3%).
At the 5.0 µW/cm2 level of exposure, 62% of the subjects (n=21) reported various effects that included momentary flashblindness, losing view of the runway surface, loss of depth perception, and/or brief distraction. Of these, four subjects (12%) executed “go around” maneuvers, while one subject (3%) relinquished control of the aircraft to the co-pilot, and two subjects (6%) commented that they would have aborted the landing if it were a “real-world” incident (i.e., actual and potential aborted landings = 7, or 21%).
At the 50.0 µW/cm2 level of exposure, 56% of the subjects (n=19) provided comments regarding the difficulties they experienced, including having to seek shelter from the harsh light (ducking under the glare shield), momentary flashblindness resulting in the total loss of view outside the cockpit, and having to transition to instrument flight rules. Of these, four subjects (12%) executed “go around” maneuvers, while five subjects (15%) reported that they would have performed a missed approach if it were a “real-world” incident or if the duration of the laser exposure had been longer (i.e., actual and potential aborted landings = 9, or 26%).
So, just so we're clear, y'all don't think it should be a Federal crime with possible jail time to engage in behavior likely to cause this stuff??
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Saturday, 5 February 2011 22:53 (fourteen years ago)
Perhaps you should try not egregiously insulting someone before laying out your argument, no matter how well reasoned.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 5 February 2011 23:21 (fourteen years ago)
like all other laser pointed-related crimes, this one should trigger automatic death penalty imo
― Z S, Saturday, 5 February 2011 23:42 (fourteen years ago)
http://i52.tinypic.com/nxnggj.jpglaser pointered while wearing uniform, dead man walking
― Z S, Saturday, 5 February 2011 23:44 (fourteen years ago)
anyone post this RS article about petraeus?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/king-davids-war-20110202?page=1
contains this choice quote
"Karzai is crazy — or crazy like a fox," says Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the leading opposition figure. "He's too skillful at playing games and too retarded when it comes to the rationale."
― My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (Princess TamTam), Sunday, 6 February 2011 12:03 (fourteen years ago)
http://i.imgur.com/KX5qm.gif
― My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (Princess TamTam), Sunday, 6 February 2011 12:12 (fourteen years ago)
Perhaps you should not affect a pose of deliberate stupidity, especially since I had already posted the gif showing the glare effect of a 5mW laser from 350 feet for one second.
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Sunday, 6 February 2011 13:31 (fourteen years ago)
this is the internet! gifs are the final word!
― gr8080, Sunday, 6 February 2011 13:49 (fourteen years ago)
OK, especially since I had already posted the gif showing the glare effect of a 5mW laser from 350 feet for one second. a link to information about the negative effects of very short exposures at various laser wattages. I find it very hard to believe that, in 2011, anything thinks that eye damage from a laser pointer requires a precision-aimed instrument on a truck being driven alongside a taxiing aircraft.
― bien-penisant vibrator (Phil D.), Sunday, 6 February 2011 14:20 (fourteen years ago)
god, that obama/bush I transformation is so unsettling!
― this is the internet! gifs are the final word! (Z S), Sunday, 6 February 2011 15:15 (fourteen years ago)
let's just illegalize laser pointers & get it over with. go back to fucking Lite Brites you spoiled kids!
― ellj versus deej (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, 6 February 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)
(illegalize = a real word lol)
i see the case for making this illegal. dunno about 5 years tho. i gather this is meant to be disincentivizing! tho if someone manages to crash a plane you could charge the dickhead with 100+ counts of murder, right?
― goole, Monday, 7 February 2011 04:21 (fourteen years ago)
oh man that gif
― difficult listening hour, Monday, 7 February 2011 04:28 (fourteen years ago)
Did you see Bill O'reilly interviewing Obama as part of the Super Bowl pre-game show. O'reilly kept making these broad statements as part of his questions like "Obamacare is very unpopular, so why did you...""Many people think you're a big-spending liberal who wants goverent to control everything how do you..."
He really said to him "Obamacare." I was waiting for O'reilly to say "many people say you're a Marxist Muslim who was not really born in America, how do you respond to that"
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 February 2011 07:07 (fourteen years ago)
^prolley lots of Fox News watchers who were waiting for the same thing...
― ellj versus deej (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 7 February 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704376104576121960881420264.html
great headline
― goole, Monday, 7 February 2011 16:54 (fourteen years ago)
Yes. Alas, it doesn't look like there will be enough support from either side of aisle to properly amend the Patriot Act. Yes, its time for Morbs to say he is not surprised.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 February 2011 17:16 (fourteen years ago)
don't think any of us are, really
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 7 February 2011 20:48 (fourteen years ago)
anytime you hear "We'll fix it later" (a fave phrase of Scumbag Schumer), translate as "Kiss it goodbye."
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 February 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
I don't think anyone said that about the Patriot Act though... I don't think anyone said much of anything about the Patriot Act before they passed it. Maybe Ron Paul and a couple others?
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 7 February 2011 20:57 (fourteen years ago)
O'Reilly/Obama interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk
I'm always impressed by how cool Obama is responding to O'Reilly's agressive inanity.
― symsymsym, Monday, 7 February 2011 20:59 (fourteen years ago)
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/monetary-policy-hearing-today-or-ron-paul-versus-the-kochtopus/
― goole, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 18:49 (fourteen years ago)
on Sully's blog, Conor Friedersdorf made the obvious point:
As Dish readers know, I am a critic of President Obama's health care bill, the fact that he continues to wage the War on Drugs, and especially his abysmal record on civil liberties. I also think many of his most strident critics on the right are loony, whether it's Dinesh D'Souza's claim that he's a Kenyan anti-colonialist, or Andy McCarthy's notion that he is allied with radical Islamists in a Grand Jihad against America, or Rush Limbaugh's various portrayals of him as a plotting, foreign seeming man bent on damaging the United States.
The interview above helps illustrate how the talk radio right's strategy is likely to backfire. Unlike a coherent, forceful critique of Obama's policies, an emphasis on his supposed otherness works on many Fox News viewers only until moments like the one when he sits down across from Papa Bear on Superbowl Sunday... and appears to be a perfectly pleasant, reasonable-seeming, unmistakably American man – one who maintains his cool, friendly demeanor, is respected by O'Reilly, and can even talk football.
It's hard to be scared of that guy. And while the cognitive dissonance isn't ever fully acknowledged or processed, the gulf that separates the loony right's portrayal of Obama from how he comes across to the average person can only result in most people dismissing a line of attack on which the right spends a lot of its time and energy.
A final thought.
Bill O'Reilly is allegedly a tough interviewer and Fox News a hostile network. But only if your idea of toughness is rhetorical bluster. It's ironic that a guy like me – the scourge of Mark Levin and his ilk – would've asked President Obama incomparably tougher questions had I been given a sitdown with him.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 February 2011 18:52 (fourteen years ago)
I think Obama also looked good because it was part of the Super Bowl pre-game show (and in part maybe O'Reilly isn't that great a questioner).
But there's also another aspect of Obama at play:
As the American Prospect noted re a recent Obama speech:
Obama's recent speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows him in his favorite posture -- bending over backward to bridge differences. But it won't change the Chamber's true posture toward the administration.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=chamber_of_horrors2#
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 19:54 (fourteen years ago)
And if there is a reason you don't share my confidence, if there is a reason you don't believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines - to hire and invest - I want to know about it. I want to fix it.
lol he knows full well their answer is "you"
― goole, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
But he strategically thinks asking such a pleading question is worthwhile.
While some take an almost perverse I told you so joy in every watered-down action Obama takes (and others rationalize or accept many of them as fitting their definition of pragmatic and realistic), I just feel disappointed and worn down by them as the days go by. I realized when I voted for him that this might happen (just as with Clinton) but that never makes it any easier for me.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
So Chris Lee, then.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 23:27 (fourteen years ago)
I'd rather have the real Christopher Lee in Congress.
― tokyo rosemary, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
he looks pretty good tbh
― goole, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 23:39 (fourteen years ago)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/09/t1larg.craigslist.gawker.jpg
― omar little, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 23:48 (fourteen years ago)
By email, Lee identified himself as a 39-year-old divorced lobbyist and sent a PG picture to the woman from the ad. (In fact, Lee is married and has one son with his wife. He's also 46.)
― omar little, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 23:52 (fourteen years ago)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5277615382_451dd0eb2f.jpg
― omar little, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 23:53 (fourteen years ago)
dude looks like
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnuUTG1-kvE/TCUewqxhfnI/AAAAAAAAAmg/cZWh4RBup-M/s1600/Will+Ferrell.jpg
― Clay, Thursday, 10 February 2011 01:05 (fourteen years ago)
And for what it's worth, the person on the other side of those images:
http://theloop21.com/politics/the-craigslist-congressman-chris-lee-gawker
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 February 2011 06:03 (fourteen years ago)
It should be said that he's got some good arms for a 46-yr-old elected official.
― Crazed Mister Handy (kingfish), Thursday, 10 February 2011 07:24 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiqCCHCD4m8
Iowa being one of the most important states for Presidential nominations is a quadrennial disaster...
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 February 2011 08:19 (fourteen years ago)
ignorant racist fucks
― I'd rather climb into the saddle of my Ford Mustang and sink spurs (stevie), Thursday, 10 February 2011 08:26 (fourteen years ago)
I've gotta give Iowa credit for one thing: they launched Obama in 2008. (I have to--if you don't like Obama, you're not obligated to give them credit.)
― clemenza, Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:58 (fourteen years ago)
guy's 'BRUCE' nametag somehow really funny in the clip above
― schlump, Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:07 (fourteen years ago)
That'll be Iowa's Democrats! xpost
Would like to drown all these racist fucks in a vat of HFCS.
― i'm going to be (sic) (suzy), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:10 (fourteen years ago)
Iowa's Democrats, yes, but Matt sort of indicated that the entire state was a disaster. (I should mention that I haven't watched this clip yet.)
― clemenza, Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:14 (fourteen years ago)
Once again, American politics and its media lackeys wrap themselves in sanctimony covering another adulterous congressman. Why the hell would he have to resign? When will they learn that extramarital problems are mostly irrelevant?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:26 (fourteen years ago)
*congressmen
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:27 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ the end of that video, barack obama is not connecting with FOX News viewers I WONDER WHY
― vacebook (crüt), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:35 (fourteen years ago)
no al you had it right first, lol xp
i certainly know no ignorant, racist democrats
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:36 (fourteen years ago)
Oh, right. Ha, it's early.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:37 (fourteen years ago)
xpost Fucking hell, these people. I like the host's implication that these guys somehow represent "the centre".
― I've been dancing since 9 and I'm tired and hungry (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:41 (fourteen years ago)
Well, tbf they do represent the centre of the FOX demographic.
― i'm going to be (sic) (suzy), Thursday, 10 February 2011 13:56 (fourteen years ago)
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, February 10
Lee chose to resign. Louisiana's Republican senator David Vitter, a married self-proclaimed religious Christian who was involved with prostitutes, among other things, has never resigned. Nevada Republican senator John Ensign, another married self-proclaimed religious Christian, had an affair with a member of his office staff, and has been accused of other things, and has never resigned.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 10 February 2011 14:49 (fourteen years ago)
By all means pick on them – most of'em deserve it, especially Lee, who opposed, among other things, the repeal of DADT. But it's a disservice to his constituents to resign.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 14:51 (fourteen years ago)
man i wonder if any of those focus groupers are from my home town
― goole, Thursday, 10 February 2011 14:58 (fourteen years ago)
focus gropers
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 14:59 (fourteen years ago)
wow @ that Iowa video: people more than a little clueless, clearly being fed lines about Obama not knowing what's going on, and giving textbook answers. Way more meta than I can take.
― kkvbgz (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 10 February 2011 15:09 (fourteen years ago)
Sotosyn, disservice to constituents is what it's all about. They can get another robot who "stands for" exactly what he does.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 February 2011 15:56 (fourteen years ago)
Dudes he is TOTALLY a Muslim that is why he is bombing Muslim countries! Btw George W Bush was also a Muslim!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 10 February 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
Just now watching the focus group clip, and that's the saddest, most discouraging thing I've seen in a long time. And no one was willing to stand up and say "you should all be ashamed of yourselves, I want nothing to do with this". If I was in that group I would want to visually and verbally distance myself from the racists.
― this is the internet! gifs are the final word! (Z S), Thursday, 10 February 2011 16:30 (fourteen years ago)
Per Politico, Jon Kyl not running for reelection.
― Groovy Goulet (pixel farmer), Thursday, 10 February 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)
i can't even touch the "he's a Muslim thing" but holy lol @ that apoplectic nitwit on the back row - "he doesn't know what to do; he never knows what to do"
um you might not agree with everything the guy does, but if you truly think he "doesn't know what to do" any more or less than ANY pres in US history, well then, you are a fucking child.
― ________ (will), Thursday, 10 February 2011 18:19 (fourteen years ago)
Let's just say I never want to see any of those people slowly licking a Dairy Queen cone... or a window, while we're at it.
― i'm going to be (sic) (suzy), Thursday, 10 February 2011 18:22 (fourteen years ago)
wow I didn't notice that the Patriot Act extension had failed in the House. lol @ GOP majority
― lmao reminisces about his days in southern china (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 February 2011 18:57 (fourteen years ago)
If I was in that group I would want to visually and verbally distance myself from the racists.
sanctimony doesn't always work so well when dealing with morons
There's a fascinating divide now between the libertarians and social conservatives. Apparently liberals and libertarians formed a block in the House to vote against Patriot Act extensions. Good on them. How temporarily this alliance lasts remains to be seen...
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
Greenwald unsurprisingly otm:
At some point, the dogmatic emphasis on limited state power, not trusting the Federal Government, and individual liberties -- all staples of right-wing political propaganda, especially Tea Party sloganeering -- has to conflict with things like oversight-free federal domestic surveillance, limitless government detention powers, and impenetrable secrecy (to say nothing of exploiting state power to advance culture war aims). Not even our political culture can sustain contradictions as egregious as (a) reading reverently from the Constitution and venerating limits on federal power, and then (b) voting to vest the Federal Government with extraordinary powers of oversight-free surveillance aimed at the American people.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:05 (fourteen years ago)
Although most of the Tea Party Caucus still voted for the renewal, right? It was only because the GOP leadership brought it under suspension of the rules (and thus requiring 2/3 majority to pass) that it failed…
― carson dial, Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:05 (fourteen years ago)
re: the lee thing -- political sex scandals will forever be relevant because the media made it that way a long time ago -- those worms are never going back in the can
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
Oh yeah, it'll pass in a couple of weeks, and Obama will get his "victory."
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
maybe dude was looking for an excuse to bail congress, cuz that was pretty quick
i feel pretty bad for his staff tho -- i'm sure most of 'em will find work somewhere in DC but that's pretty fucked up on his part
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)
Amazing combo of stupidity + naivete there. (re Lee)
― Groovy Goulet (pixel farmer), Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igYKflAdzjo
― polyphonic, Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
did that woman really just argue that HIV can be transmitted via saliva-coated blowdarts
SALIVA DOES NOT TRANSMIT HIV jesus fuck
thought we cleared all this up back in the 80s
― lmao reminisces about his days in southern china (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)
Can't wait till they open hearings into toilet seat licking.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:21 (fourteen years ago)
Eight House Republican freshmen and three inaugural members of the Tea Party Caucus voted against a proposed extension of three Patriot Act provisions Tuesday night, blocking the measure from passage under fast-track rules.
The House clearly backed the measure, voting 277 to 148 to extend the provisions, and most Republicans stuck by their leadership and supported the extension. But enough defected, joined by most Democrats, to keep the measure seven votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage under the fast-track procedure.
The House is likely to bring the extensions back up before the end of the month under regular procedures, when a simple majority would suffice to send it to the Senate.
Michelle Bachmann and other tea partiers supported the extension
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 10 February 2011 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
Roy Edroso is watching CPAC and liveblogging it. He is a national treasure.
― Pirates of the Caribbean V: Letters of Marque & Reprisal (Phil D.), Thursday, 10 February 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ucaI-i26fY
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 February 2011 23:07 (fourteen years ago)
THE LORD OF THE UNDEAD RETURNS!!!!!hangman1995 1 hour ago 14
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 February 2011 23:13 (fourteen years ago)
SIMPLY THE BEST!
― polyphonic, Thursday, 10 February 2011 23:19 (fourteen years ago)
day late on the Iowa idiots but i loled most at:
"HE GIVES TEXTBOOK ANSWERS"
― gr8080, Friday, 11 February 2011 06:10 (fourteen years ago)
Not even our political culture can sustain contradictions as egregious as (a) reading reverently from the Constitution and venerating limits on federal power, and then (b) voting to vest the Federal Government with extraordinary powers of oversight-free surveillance aimed at the American people.
*shakes head sadly* Glenn.. Glenn. Sure it can.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 February 2011 10:56 (fourteen years ago)
Not for long.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 February 2011 12:07 (fourteen years ago)
as Governor Reagan said, "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now."
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 February 2011 12:11 (fourteen years ago)
I watched the Iowa clip yesterday. Truthfully, it made me laugh. These folks are wearing name tags..."Hi, I'm Bruce--I would like to see him sent back to Kenya." In terms of Obama's prospects for 2012, they're the gift that keeps on giving--I want them as visible as possible. But he'll win or lose in the middle, so they don't much matter, unless they help sway a certain percentage in the middle towards Obama. Frank Lutz is hilarious--he does that melodramatic "Do you understand what you're saying here?" thing so well--as is the look of grave concern on Hannity's face at the end.
― clemenza, Friday, 11 February 2011 16:45 (fourteen years ago)
I contradicted myself there--"the gift that keeps on giving" followed by "they don't much matter." Probably I wish they were the gift that keeps on giving; in actual fact, I suspect they don't much matter.
― clemenza, Friday, 11 February 2011 16:55 (fourteen years ago)
Dick Cheney presented Donald Rumsfeld the protecting the constitution award at that Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington DC yesterday.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 11 February 2011 18:22 (fourteen years ago)
And the Rick Santorum speech was laughable also
― curmudgeon, Friday, 11 February 2011 18:50 (fourteen years ago)
So awesome that his response to "War criminal!" is a barely-contained, sinister laugh. What an amazing villain.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 11 February 2011 19:02 (fourteen years ago)
he really plays it to the hilt. he even had his heart removed!
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 February 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
also lol at Rumsfeld getting booed. awesome
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 February 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
uh
In an interview with the Associated Press, [Wisconsin Governor] Scott Walker proposed stripping nearly all government workers of their collective bargaining rights. And as a warning shot across the bow, he told Wisconsin reporters Friday that he's alerted the National Guard ahead of any unrest, or in the event that state services are interrupted. Under his plan, which he'll include in his forthcoming budget proposal, most state workers would no longer be able to negotiate for better pensions or health benefits or anything other than higher salaries, which couldn't rise at a quicker pace than the Consumer Price Index.
this is the same guy who was so proud about killing the planned high-speed rail in Wisconsin (and who in doing so might have fucked over people in Minnesota too).
― fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (Z S), Friday, 11 February 2011 22:56 (fourteen years ago)
A proposed amendment to this bill would declare state government workers to be "serfs", who would be unable to quit their jobs, and forced to eat gruel out of wooden bowls during their 10 minute - at a maximum - lunch break. Said the sponsor of the amendment, Todd Splenetic (R-Sheboygan), "They'll do whatever we say, and they'll like it, too. It's about time we started running a tighter ship around here."
― Aimless, Friday, 11 February 2011 23:04 (fourteen years ago)
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0cbrfSR1rjeXI/610x.jpg
― gr8080, Friday, 11 February 2011 23:53 (fourteen years ago)
more coverage of Scott Walker (not the cool one)Mr. Walker made several proposals that will weaken not just unions’ ability to bargain contracts, but also their finances and political clout.
His proposal would make it harder for unions to collect dues because the state would stop collecting the money from employee paychecks.
He would further weaken union treasuries by giving members of public-sector unions the right not to pay dues. In an unusual move, he would require secret-ballot votes each year at every public-sector union to determine whether a majority of workers still want to be unionized.
He would require public-employee unions to negotiate new contracts every year, an often lengthy process.
wait a second, is this a proposal to save money or is the primary intent just to kill unions?
But Mr. Walker and Republican leaders said disassembling unions was not the point at all.
oooh! PHEW!
― fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (Z S), Saturday, 12 February 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
These are nationwide strategies for Republican governors. It almost makes me think they're grateful that the Bush recession has continued on so it would give them an excuse to go harder against unions (as weak as they are already)
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 12 February 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcwjN0_8Gg
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 13 February 2011 08:57 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PePBckhxM
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 13 February 2011 09:01 (fourteen years ago)
the funniest/freakiest part of the cheney war criminal clip is the audience randomly breaking into USA!! USA!! USA!! like their spontaneous excitement over their vampiric hero's surprise guest appearance just can't stop itself from mutating into creepy nationalism
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 13 February 2011 09:20 (fourteen years ago)
I thought they did the usa chant to shout down the Paulites who were yelling boo-urns
― Crazed Mister Handy (kingfish), Sunday, 13 February 2011 09:44 (fourteen years ago)
I just couldn't bring myself to watch the Sunday morning political talk shows. I really don't want to hear Newt Gingrich (or current Congressional types) recite standard schtick and not be called on it.
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 13 February 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)
These billboards have been popping up around Portland lately. I guess it's a national tour:
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/180080_501801526595_681036595_6850321_4082760_n.jpg
Bit of a shame b/c I'd actually like to see Brian Tracy, but a quick google of "Get Motivated seminar scam" gives telling results.
― Crazed Mister Handy (kingfish), Monday, 14 February 2011 09:01 (fourteen years ago)
That is a very ambiguous price tag.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Monday, 14 February 2011 13:35 (fourteen years ago)
My Air Force officer friend was essentially required to go to one of those, said it was bizarre and extremely Christian.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Monday, 14 February 2011 13:59 (fourteen years ago)
oh cosby, why ;(
― I'd rather climb into the saddle of my Ford Mustang and sink spurs (stevie), Monday, 14 February 2011 14:01 (fourteen years ago)
I'm guessing everyone on that board, like me, is sick of these teenagers w/ their pants falling down.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:02 (fourteen years ago)
Not Forbes.
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
wait what did Cosby do?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:07 (fourteen years ago)
"My Air Force officer friend was essentially required to go to one of those, said it was bizarre and extremely Christian."
that is extremely fucked up.
― ________ (will), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:10 (fourteen years ago)
R Maddow did a sort of expose on a happy smiley plastic couple who organize those kinds of things, but it was maybe 2 yrs ago? I think she had the scary wife on her show a couple of times. The whole thing and its assumed audience are both Repub and Evangelical, both pretty much explicitly.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:12 (fourteen years ago)
The Air Force has been pretty well taken over by evangelical Christians as of late, in no small part because of the Academy's location in Colorado Springs. A Google search for "Air Force evangelical Christianity" will show all sorts of similar stories.
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:13 (fourteen years ago)
yeah Jeff Sharlett delved into it a bit for his Harper's piece "Jesus Killed Mohammed" -- which should be required reading for military officers imho
i maybe be mis-remembering, but something like 36% of military chaplains are evangelical, which is crazy disproportionate to enlisted personnel.
― ________ (will), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:22 (fourteen years ago)
Sharlett devoted a big part of his book to that topic, too. I think the % of military chaplains was actually higher than that, unless I'm mixing it up with someone else.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Monday, 14 February 2011 15:32 (fourteen years ago)
The 25 Best(?) Quotes from CPAC at Esquire, courtesy Roy Edroso. Might be poll-worthy, certainly LOL-worthy.
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Monday, 14 February 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)
More evidence that Evangelical Christianity = Death Cult
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 14 February 2011 18:29 (fourteen years ago)
Apparently no one either on the left or right is serious about deficit reduction.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
Were they ever?
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 14 February 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
YOU DONT SAY
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, February 14, 2011 8:33 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
The American public isn't serious about it either, judging by the recent polls on what they'd be willing to cut.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 14 February 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
Dick Cheney was right!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
no one knows what the deficit is, therefore they don't care about it
― J0rdan S., Monday, 14 February 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
it's just a stick to beat the opposition with.
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
The American public cares about not giving money to people who don't deserve it. American fiscal responsibility goes that far & no further.
This is why I'm guessing those Arcade Fire subsidies are going to end with the new budget.
― Euler, Monday, 14 February 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)
I only ask because now DC shifts into my least favorite mode: "framing" the debate.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:48 (fourteen years ago)
why shouldn't Cheney laugh at being called a war criminal btw, now that he's publicly lauded Obama for coming around on most of his and Bush's terrah policies?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:48 (fourteen years ago)
This is one of the things I like least about the technocratic left, though: they talk as if it's foolish to think about government spending in moralistic terms: prime the pump! Just give poor people money to get the economy rolling again! So the only side talking in moralistic terms is the right, & thus the public debate is largely ceded to the right, since the public reasons moralistically & not technocratically.
― Euler, Monday, 14 February 2011 20:52 (fourteen years ago)
it is moral to help the poor. Jesus might have said something about this, lemme check.
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 February 2011 20:59 (fourteen years ago)
By giving in on the Bush tax cuts (including the ones for the rich) so easily prior to the current debate and not making clear how much they would cost, the White House has also hurt its position for the current debate.
Also, neither party will cut farm subsidies even though most of the money is not aiding little family farmers
― curmudgeon, Monday, 14 February 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
little family farmers is like in the single digits of the farming industry, percentage wise
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 February 2011 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
Shakey, the technocratic left *could* put it in moralistic terms, but they don't; they put it in econometric terms.
― Euler, Monday, 14 February 2011 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
yep, this is the comeuppance of that big shrug everyone in the governing-punditry complex gave the tax extension
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 February 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
did you check on that jesus thing shakey
― max, Monday, 14 February 2011 21:08 (fourteen years ago)
Ol' Sausage Fingers strikes again:http://wonkette.com/438049/haley-barbour-sticks-foot-in-mouth-by-declining-to-be-racist-against-mexicans
somebody outfit him with an extra large scarlet 'A'
― ________ (will), Monday, 14 February 2011 21:11 (fourteen years ago)
do people call him sausage fingers cause that would be awesome
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 14 February 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)
as far as I know it's just me and a friend who laughed a lot at (probably) this photo:http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/06/23/PH2009062302131.jpg
but i'm 100% in favor of it catching on.
― ________ (will), Monday, 14 February 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
More ppl should listen to what He said rather than try and drink His blood.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 14 February 2011 22:08 (fourteen years ago)
I am a huge proponent of the left using moralistic/religious language to gain populist support for their policies but I don't think this is an either/or proposition. Part of the reason I'm a leftist (however nominatively at this point) is because of those econometric terms that make strong logical/intellectual cases for leftist policies. I wouldn't want leftists to start to jettison those explanations in favor of moralistic ones. But they need to put the two together. Especially when the argument is something like, "This policy will increase jobs for the lower middle class AND we have an obligation to do so." The econometric is the why this policy and not another. The moral is the propulsion to support anything at all. (For instance, if trickle down worked to create jobs wouldn't we all support it? The problem isn't just ethical, it's that it doesn't work.)
― Mordy, Monday, 14 February 2011 22:13 (fourteen years ago)
(what passes for) the left makes its case for progressive taxation in technocratic terms largely b/c they are technocrats & that's the language that they're most comfortable using for such a debate.
problem is, however moral progressive taxation may be a moralistic defense will likely fall on deaf ears when the middle class finds itself pinched and endangered.
― Poontang Clan Ain't Nothin' ta ... (Eisbaer), Monday, 14 February 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
Jesus also said to pray in your room behind a closed door, not ostentatiously and for display, so don't hold your breath.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 February 2011 22:18 (fourteen years ago)
The case for liberal economic policies from the bible is really strong. Forget Jesus. According to the OT you aren't allowed to charge interest or hold collateral when the collateral is damaging to the borrower. Not only that, but you're mandated to give loans to the needy.
― Mordy, Monday, 14 February 2011 22:20 (fourteen years ago)
No interest = essentially the end of US style Capitalism (and prob Capitalism everywhere ever)
― Mordy, Monday, 14 February 2011 22:21 (fourteen years ago)
Forget Jesus
died 4 u
― kingkongvsbasedgodzilla (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 14 February 2011 22:28 (fourteen years ago)
imho pharisees were onto something
― Mordy, Monday, 14 February 2011 22:29 (fourteen years ago)
Recovered from bronchial fever, Sully turns on Bam.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, I didn't want to deny that instrumental reasoning should be a tool of politics, but that the left overly relies on it, whilst the right doesn't...and as a result is able to communicate more effectively.
I suspect, though, that many people who ally themselves with the left in the USA don't share the moral convictions of the traditional left; that is, they just think that progressive taxation makes the economy work better, not that egalitarian policies are morally right independently of economic reasons.
― Euler, Monday, 14 February 2011 22:41 (fourteen years ago)
if i've lost sullivan i've lost bloggerati america etc xp
― Mordy, Monday, 14 February 2011 22:54 (fourteen years ago)
http://mercuriusfm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/545_Large.jpg
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 14 February 2011 22:58 (fourteen years ago)
Sully quoting that david brooks article without sarcasm or irony says all you need to know about his credibility on this issue.
There is some hope, as David Brooks has noted. Those who want to save the useful things that government alone can do, while pulling back from the fiscal brink, have toget behind an effort now being hatched by a group of courageous senators: Saxby Chambliss, Mark Warner, Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mike Crapo and Kent Conrad. These public heroes have been leading an effort to write up the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report as legislation to serve as the beginning for a serious effort to get our house in order. They’ve been meeting with 20 to 40 of their colleagues to push this along.
get behind an effort now being hatched by a group of courageous senators: Saxby Chambliss, Mark Warner, Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mike Crapo and Kent Conrad. These public heroes have been leading an effort to write up the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report as legislation to serve as the beginning for a serious effort to get our house in order. They’ve been meeting with 20 to 40 of their colleagues to push this along.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 14 February 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)
yeah I balked at "courageous"
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 23:06 (fourteen years ago)
I balked at the idea of under-30s reading Sully regularly.
― i'm going to be (sic) (suzy), Monday, 14 February 2011 23:13 (fourteen years ago)
most of my students!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 February 2011 23:16 (fourteen years ago)
I've warned him that Sully, who is pure id, will turn on them eventually.
Sullivan has pounced on Obama for a variety of things the past three years--sometimes I think just to make a show of not being a mindless Obama stooge--and he generally does an about-face at some point along the way. (As a mindless Obama stooge, I never have to play such games.) Maybe this latest post does signal something new, but my guess is that he'll revisit the matter a few weeks or a couple of months down the road, at which point he'll be talking about Obama's "long game" that he missed the first time around.
― clemenza, Monday, 14 February 2011 23:26 (fourteen years ago)
sully has always been a sort of deficit hawk though, right?!?
― Poontang Clan Ain't Nothin' ta ... (Eisbaer), Monday, 14 February 2011 23:34 (fourteen years ago)
I never really read him till 2008--you might be right there, maybe this is the one button Obama shouldn't have pushed.
― clemenza, Monday, 14 February 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
not sort of, its the only thing still that makes him a conservative i believe
― max, Monday, 14 February 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 14 February 2011 23:50 (fourteen years ago)
people over 30 have been screwing those under 30 for far longer than O's been prez. at least sullivan's unabashed about pot and gay folk.
― shaane, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 01:31 (fourteen years ago)
looking forward to stories about obama's fake pregnancy
― buzza, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 01:41 (fourteen years ago)
man, fuck this budget. both proposals. cutting heating oil for low income people? fuck you.
― fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (Z S), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:11 (fourteen years ago)
ever heard of a thing called shared sacrifice, dude?
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:12 (fourteen years ago)
also, on a slightly personal note, the Obama budget calls for 12.5% cut in EPA funding. The GOP just upped their proposed cut to $3 billion (roughly 30%).
So, inevitably, they'll meet in the middle and EPA gets a 20% cut or so.
sigh.
― fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (Z S), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:16 (fourteen years ago)
how about we order a handful fewer giant killing machines so that we can protect the foundation of our civilization?
naaaaah, northrop grumman's gotta get real paid, nevermind
― fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (Z S), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:18 (fourteen years ago)
hey zs
http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2010/02/pe-newsom-have-one-on-me.jpg
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)
if you're suggesting that hundreds of thousands of americans be asked to burn joanna newsom albums for their main heat source, that's something i could potentially get behind
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:58 (fourteen years ago)
haw
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)
the fumes are toxic
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 03:08 (fourteen years ago)
toxic fumes a small price to pay
― VegemiteGrrl, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 03:09 (fourteen years ago)
i hope kevin k. was being sarcastic about "shared sacrifices." if only our politicians had been like that 2 years ago when we were fuming about bonuses being paid to AIG douchebags.
― Poontang Clan Ain't Nothin' ta ... (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 03:13 (fourteen years ago)
i'm becoming more Morbz-ish in my old age (except that i will always hate the Mets).
― Poontang Clan Ain't Nothin' ta ... (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 03:14 (fourteen years ago)
― Poontang Clan Ain't Nothin' ta ... (Eisbaer), Monday, February 14, 2011 10:13 PM (27 minutes ago)
ha sorry yeah i was def being sarcastic, if it wasn't clear
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 03:42 (fourteen years ago)
I would gladly share my Joann Newsom fuel with any and all of you, fwiw
― VegemiteGrrl, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 03:50 (fourteen years ago)
Joanna
Sullivan and Brooks and those moderate and conservative congressman are so clueless in their formulaic approach to methods that should should be used to cut the deficit
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 05:10 (fourteen years ago)
Sullivan today:
"Readers tell me Obama is once again playing the long game, tactically outsmarting Republicans, while freezing domestic discretionary spending, and waiting for his second term to deliver the real cuts and tax reform the US desperately needs. Usually, there is some evidence for this. But not now."
So: he's standing his ground, but the "long game" defense has crept in. He has travelled this path more than once. We'll see where he is in a week or two.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:30 (fourteen years ago)
I support the Deficit-Killing Joanna Newsom Records Energy Plan
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:48 (fourteen years ago)
Sully:
I am not turning on the president given the alternatives, but I am not going to use the alternatives as excuses for the president to shirk his core responsibility to the next generation. I didn't send eight years excoriating George "Deficits Don't Matter" Bush to provide excuses for Barack "Default Doesn't Matter" Obama. Like other fiscal conservatives, I'm just deeply disappointed by Obama's reprise of politics as usual - even as the fiscal crisis has worsened beyond measure in the last three years. My point is that actually being honest about the budget and what it will take to resolve its long-term crisis is not political suicide, as Chait says. It's statesmanship. It's what a president is for.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:03 (fourteen years ago)
*shrugs*
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:07 (fourteen years ago)
statesmanship = political suicide
― I, Mr. Sneer Joy (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:08 (fourteen years ago)
Today's post is also fairly tough; I'm just pointing out that, by allowing the "long game" defense to creep in, he take a half-step back. He gave Obama hell for months over DADT, then, when the whole thing was over, posted a lengthy long-game mea culpa. Again: he's been down this road before.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:09 (fourteen years ago)
I'm pretty sure the deficit/entitlements crisis won't be resolved in time for a mea culpa. or until we go full Mad Max.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
I don't get how much weight some of you appear to give to Sullivan's blogposts. Just because he has criticized Bush and Obama does not automatically give his views much more weight and insight imho. I will stick with Krugman.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)
Krugman is better on economics, of course, but he's a flat, dull stylist, fond of rhetorical questions. Sully meanwhile is, like I said, all id; he's batshit in the best sense.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 19:23 (fourteen years ago)
Plus, it's just me, but I'm more attracted to the disillusioned, contrarian conservative than to the unabashed liberal.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 19:24 (fourteen years ago)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers
― reggaeton for the painfully alone (polyphonic), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 19:54 (fourteen years ago)
Another half-step back:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/obama-says-he-hasnt-ducked-bowles-simpson.html
I'm not saying there's anything sinister or dishonest going on. He's an Obama supporter, so he's doing what people do when they're angry at someone they support: he takes an extra day, takes a second look, and starts to see the other side of the argument. And Obama's been fairly consistent in one regard since taking office, something that drives some people nuts:
"You guys are pretty impatient," he told reporters. "The assumption is if it doesn't happen today, it's not going to happen."
― clemenza, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
Reporters are doing their jobs, and Sully is doing his (i.e. posting every uncensored thought).
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)
Reporters are doing their jobs
where? where?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
Irritating our favorite trojan horse.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:39 (fourteen years ago)
I wish Obama had never appointed business-friendly conservative Democrat Bowles and right-wing crazy Simpson to run the deficit panel. Then we wouldn't have to take their unfair plan seriously or listen to conservative contrarian Sullivan tell Obama and us to take it seriously.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
I wish Obama had ended the Bush tax cuts for rich people so I won't live to see Civil War II.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
I lost my tenuous grip on the tailgate of the deficit-reduction-panel bandwagon the moment I saw that it said (I paraphrase here), "You know what we really need to get these big, nasty deficits under control? More and better tax cuts!"
― Aimless, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
The Bowles-Simpson plan like the plans put forth by Republican Ryan in the House start off with the notion that we need to lower rates for the rich and corporations first and then the plans also will supposedly get rid of some deductions, but most economists say such plans will bring in less money even if they do get rid of certain deductions (and they probably won't get rid of all the deductions).
There was a minority Democrat plan that would cut the defense budget and farm subsidies. Alas, this one is getting ignored now by everyone. What else is new.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 21:17 (fourteen years ago)
Hmm, meanwhile:
http://www.theawl.com/2011/02/wisconsin-demonstrates-against-scott-walkers-war-on-unions
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
scott walker's big mistake was to announce EXPLICITLY that he was going to bust the state workers' union. his comrades-in-arms like Chris Christie and Michael Bloomberg are doing that, too, but they aren't dumb enough to just state it outright.
― Phuc Duong Bich (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 23:35 (fourteen years ago)
what's montara, ca like?
https://secure.donationsafe.com/ewj
― Jan-Michael Wincest (goole), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 15:49 (fourteen years ago)
just noticed the apostrophe...
― Jan-Michael Wincest (goole), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 15:50 (fourteen years ago)
Autographed memorabilia from Joe The Plumber! Be still my beating heart!
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 15:53 (fourteen years ago)
Schools in Madison closed today as teachers walk out to protest. Police unions and fire unions, exempted from Walker's bill, are out protesting anyway to protect the teachers and the prison guards. Testimony at the Capitol went on until 3am, started up again today at 7. This should be much bigger national news than it is -- not because the whole country should care about Wisconsin state employees, but because it won't stop here.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 15:56 (fourteen years ago)
My parents' neighbor is a fire fighter. Works three days straight, off the rest of the week, saves the occasional senior from dying of a heart attack. Sweet life.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 15:57 (fourteen years ago)
Yep, that's why we're all running out to sign up to be firefighters.
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 16:11 (fourteen years ago)
In other Wisconsin news, I see that former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has formed a group entitled "Progressives United". I received a form e-mail from him since non-Wisconsinite me had once sent him money for his campaign.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 16:13 (fourteen years ago)
My brother in-law is a firefighter. For all the seniors with heart attacks there are actual burning buildings to run into as well, car accidents, trauma injuries, gunshot victims...and if I want one of them to come and help me when I need them, I want the one that's well-paid, well-trained, and as far from disgruntled as possible. I know it's not the same thing but the 'sweet life' argument is the same as 'teachers get all those holidays, why are they complaining'...sorry, but it grinds my gears.
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 17:40 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html
holy fucking lol
― Jan-Michael Wincest (goole), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 17:50 (fourteen years ago)
why don't we do this Michele Bachmann
― DJP, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 17:53 (fourteen years ago)
Sleepy little sea-side town/bedroom community
― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 18:29 (fourteen years ago)
Meantime I admit every time I see stories like these:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/os-scott-rejects-rail-money-20110216,0,6092680.story
...I am bummed for you guys elsewhere but thinking "Heck yes, we'll take that easy!"
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, February 16, 2011 11:13 AM (3 hours ago)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/feingold-returns-progressives-united-pac-to-fight-corporate-influence/#
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)
run Russ run
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 19:37 (fourteen years ago)
yeah totally. more for us. in the future we will laugh at other states from the comfort of our luxuriously appointed supertrains as we rocket from San Diego to Sacramento
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 19:40 (fourteen years ago)
the 'sweet life' argument is the same as 'teachers get all those holidays, why are they complaining'...sorry, but it grinds my gears.
Thank you.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
is this sarcasm or do you have no idea how competitive it is to get this job today?
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:42 (fourteen years ago)
pretty sure it's sarcasm? jeez I hope so
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
also hope more red state govs give up that free train money, this is such a win-win for us
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:44 (fourteen years ago)
woop wooop, all aboard for train money!
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
Tampa Orlando train plan was a stupid idea anyway as it didn't go all the way to Orlando.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
Based on how this is going in the early stages, I will say that I have visions of the country being covered in 100 mile sections of fast-train tracks that don't join up.
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
I am not convinced that the very frugal Jerry Brown will be Mr. Supertrain himself.
― reggaeton for the painfully alone (polyphonic), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:52 (fourteen years ago)
Nah, it's federal funding and we've already happily accepted more from the other states that have turned it down, so I'm sure this will yet continue.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:53 (fourteen years ago)
he's always been pro-rail
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
why don't we do [the Santorum thing] to Michele Bachmann
― DJP, Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:53 PM (3 hours ago)
Well, Googling her name pulls up this as one of the most popular images:
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/07/political-pictures-michele-bachmann-crazy1_43760.jpg
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
"Everyone gets a government-funded wheelbarrow to transport one family member anywhere between Sacramento and San Diego"
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
"Thanks, Oprah!"
― DJP, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:12 (fourteen years ago)
Jerry Brown is totally pro-lightrail fyi
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:30 (fourteen years ago)
How popular is the Acela?
― reggaeton for the painfully alone (polyphonic), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:34 (fourteen years ago)
lots of people take it and it actually makes $
or did you mean popular in the PR sense?
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:36 (fourteen years ago)
3.1 million people a year and somewhat restricted because the trains are stupidly short (5 cars long)
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:37 (fourteen years ago)
The first one, iatee.
I'm skeptical that a high speed train would get much use in CA, especially if it runs inland.
― reggaeton for the painfully alone (polyphonic), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:37 (fourteen years ago)
yeah I mean it's reasonable skepticism, but you also have to think about things like gas prices 20 years from now.
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:41 (fourteen years ago)
dude if I could take high speed rail from SAC to SF, LA or San Diego I would SO use it, compared to driving or flying.
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:54 (fourteen years ago)
rick scott turned down rail money today
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 16 February 2011 22:55 (fourteen years ago)
Tallahassee should just close shop and move its operations to Disney World.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:00 (fourteen years ago)
omg flying/driving between SF/LA/SD (something I do several times a year) is such a goddamned nightmare. the 5 is jampacked year-round, flying Southwest bites - me and my family would SO use a lightrail train.
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:08 (fourteen years ago)
pretty sure you don't want to take lightrail from SF to LA shakey
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:09 (fourteen years ago)
but yeah I think california is culturally very pro-the idea of taking hsr and that matters
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:11 (fourteen years ago)
But they should make it so the railway joins up with Disneyland's monorail so you do a highspeed loop around the park and on to your destination. That would be cool (and scary for tourists!)
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
sorry I meant high speed rail, youknowhutimean
altho lol I have taken Amtrak
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:44 (fourteen years ago)
(all over the country, I might add)
I've only taken Amtrak from Seattle back to Sacramento...the whole 'we don't own the railway line' thing gets pretty old after the first 90 times you have to stop and let the freight trains go by. I mean, I wasn't in a hurry to get where I was going but still, arriving 5 hours past your arrival time is kind of O_o
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 17 February 2011 00:11 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i kind of wanted to die during my 11 hour train ride from Memphis to NOLA (5.5 hr by car)
― ________ (will), Thursday, 17 February 2011 00:38 (fourteen years ago)
my limited experience in portland --> seattle and back amtrak rides have been absolute bliss compared to the stress of driving.
― Clay, Thursday, 17 February 2011 00:55 (fourteen years ago)
i <3 rail so much by my experiences between chicago/nyc were awful. mpls and montana, however: delightful
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 17 February 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
by = but
used to take the Amtrak b/w NYC and Philadelphia a lot -- the Acela was overpriced ($50 more than a regular Amtrak ticket) for what it offered (only shaved 30 minutes offa the ride). it's obv. more cost-effective for longer trips.
― Phuc Duong Bich (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 February 2011 02:10 (fourteen years ago)
I've taken Amtrak up from Anaheim to Vancouver and back, and from Charleston to NYC plus NYC/Boston and Montreal/NYC. Great trips all, despite the delays. I recommend it whenever possible.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 February 2011 02:18 (fourteen years ago)
The patriot act vote from last week is already old news, I guess, but I thought this was useful to contrast against the quickly established common wisdom that the tea partiers were crucial in helping to temporarily delay it's passing:
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/02/the_tea_party_and_the_patriot_.html
http://www.themonkeycage.org/assets_c/2011/02/teapartypatriotact1-thumb-475x425-302.png
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Thursday, 17 February 2011 04:45 (fourteen years ago)
on a personal note i was really bummed that chris murphy, a democrat who's positioning himself as a progressive running for the seat lieberman is vacating, voted for its extension
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 17 February 2011 04:52 (fourteen years ago)
Continuing re: rail:
"The $2 billion that Florida rejected are more than welcome here," California Gov. Jerry Brown said.California. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking that all the Florida money be sent here. "It is now clear that California will lead the way in demonstrating the viability of high-speed rail to the rest of the country," they wrote.Critics argue California's proposed rail line also is likely to fall short of ridership forecasts and be costly to operate. But state voters endorsed the plan in 2008, as well as $9 billion in funding.The state is "in a great position to be … competitive for federal dollars," said Jeffrey Barker, deputy executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. California has the nation's only truly high-speed train project in advanced stages of planning, he added.Work on a $5.5.-billion, 120-mile section of Central Valley track is expected to begin next year. If new funds are received, the segment could be extended west toward San Jose or south toward Palmdale.
California. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking that all the Florida money be sent here. "It is now clear that California will lead the way in demonstrating the viability of high-speed rail to the rest of the country," they wrote.
Critics argue California's proposed rail line also is likely to fall short of ridership forecasts and be costly to operate. But state voters endorsed the plan in 2008, as well as $9 billion in funding.
The state is "in a great position to be … competitive for federal dollars," said Jeffrey Barker, deputy executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. California has the nation's only truly high-speed train project in advanced stages of planning, he added.
Work on a $5.5.-billion, 120-mile section of Central Valley track is expected to begin next year. If new funds are received, the segment could be extended west toward San Jose or south toward Palmdale.
I'd figure Palmdale might be the better initial move -- if you brought it there, you could connect up via Metrolink to the general SoCal network as it stands.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 February 2011 15:33 (fourteen years ago)
Great goings-on into Ohio, btw -- more than 4,000 people showed up in Columbus today to protest against SB5, which would strip public employee unions of collective bargaining rights for anything but salary. One political reporter live-tweeting it here: http://twitter.com/#!/ohiocapitalblog (My favorite: SB5 supporter: "we're sick of spending taxpayers' money supporting you!" Firefighter: "then stop calling 911")
Our governor is such a fucking choad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPZZPo-3-hM
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
SB5 supporter: "we're sick of spending taxpayers' money supporting you!" Firefighter: "then stop calling 911"
looool
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
In an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) defended Gov. Scott Walker’s push to ban most collective bargaining for state union employees, and require that state workers contribute 12 percent to their health-care plans and nearly 6 percent to their pension funds.
“It’s not asking a lot, it’s still about half of what private sector pensions do and health care packages do. So he’s basically saying, I want you public workers to pay half of what our private sector counterparts are, and he’s getting, you know, riots,” remarked Ryan.
“It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison these days,” he said, adding that “people should be able to express their way, but we’ve got to get this deficit and debt under control in Madison, if we want to have a good business climate and job creation in Wisconsin.”
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
“It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison these days,”
always good to draw comparisons between yrself and out of touch dictator, way to go bro
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:30 (fourteen years ago)
BTW, this is what Kasich is referring to re: American Greetings and Brooklyn, OH -- a fit of infantile petulance by a company that apparently doesn't think it should pay to help maintain the city whose resources it uses.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/american_greetings_may_pull_it.html
BROOKLYN, Ohio -- American Greetings Corp., the nation's largest publicly held greeting card manufacturer, is exploring moving its global headquarters from Brooklyn to another community - maybe even out of state - with lower taxes.In an internal memo sent to employees on Wednesday, the company said: "we are launching a study to consider whether or not we should move the company's world headquarters to another location" because the City of Brooklyn last spring voted to raise the city's payroll tax 25 percent, to 2.5 percent from 2.0 percent. . . . Brooklyn Finance Director Dennis Kennedy says that on average the city gets $250,000 a month in withholding taxes, or about $3 million a year in revenues, from American Greetings. That works out to 20 percent of the city's general fund, or 13 percent of its total annual budget of about $24 million.Losing American Greetings would force Brooklyn to "reduce its services to bare necessities," for its 11,000 residents, he said, but he declined to speculate on what those might be.The loss could also be devastating to the 1,500-pupil Brooklyn City Schools, which gets the largest share of the company's property tax dollars. School officials could not be reached.American Greetings, which started building its Brooklyn campus in 1956 and moved in the next year, said that while it understands that Brooklyn is facing economic challenges, "we're particularly disappointed that the city has taken this action."
In an internal memo sent to employees on Wednesday, the company said: "we are launching a study to consider whether or not we should move the company's world headquarters to another location" because the City of Brooklyn last spring voted to raise the city's payroll tax 25 percent, to 2.5 percent from 2.0 percent.
. . . Brooklyn Finance Director Dennis Kennedy says that on average the city gets $250,000 a month in withholding taxes, or about $3 million a year in revenues, from American Greetings. That works out to 20 percent of the city's general fund, or 13 percent of its total annual budget of about $24 million.
Losing American Greetings would force Brooklyn to "reduce its services to bare necessities," for its 11,000 residents, he said, but he declined to speculate on what those might be.
The loss could also be devastating to the 1,500-pupil Brooklyn City Schools, which gets the largest share of the company's property tax dollars. School officials could not be reached.
American Greetings, which started building its Brooklyn campus in 1956 and moved in the next year, said that while it understands that Brooklyn is facing economic challenges, "we're particularly disappointed that the city has taken this action."
I think I speak for everyone when I say "Fuck capitalism."
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:32 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah fuck capitalism, but what kind of community has its fate tied to a greeting card company ffs?
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:57 (fourteen years ago)
There are only 11000 people there, how diverse do you expect their economy to be?
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:00 (fourteen years ago)
so many small towns are supported by one or two large employers
― herbal bert (herb albert), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:01 (fourteen years ago)
then why does their economy exist in the first place? xp
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)
it's a little federalist/facist/unrealist of me, I guess, but little towns that rely on an industry that heavily sank their own ship years ago and should be assimilated or abandoned as needed. Relocation to cities, anyone?
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:03 (fourteen years ago)
sorry :\
I also realize that's a terribly unsympathetic pov
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
― old man yells at poop first thing in the morning (pixel farmer), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:05 (fourteen years ago)
Lol Jimmy. Really. Just, screw towns. Giant cities is what we need!
The perceived symbiotic relationship between towns and industry that help keep them alive is pretty fragile. Towns usually court those industries, and do everything they can to keep the town supporting the business but business make business decisions and ultimately do not give 2 craps about the town they're in, if they're large enough to be able to relocate. I say this growing up in a town where the closure of an slaughterhouse almost brought the entire town to its knees, were it not for a last-minute buyout by a larger company. It's easier to be cold about it from a distance, but if you've lived through it, it's hard to be that distant.
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:13 (fourteen years ago)
arcology.gif
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)
The internet will eventually topple capitalism.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 17 February 2011 18:55 (fourteen years ago)
banaka RIP
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)
oh man I hope this is true
I mean I just love that GOP didn't learn their lesson from the last gov't shutdown
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
Company: American Greetings Corp.
Headquarters: One American Road, Brooklyn
Business: Creator and manufacturer of greeting cards, e-cards and other social expressions products
Chief Executive Officer Zev Weiss: $3,270,983Change from previous year: +66 percent
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:41 (fourteen years ago)
grrr
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:51 (fourteen years ago)
See, that's when I share some of Sully's rage. Instead of discussing economics, political reporters would rather write about who's in, who's out, which faction is warring against someone else. Now the drama is WHO GETS THE BLAME FOR THE GOV'T SHUTDOWN?
xpost to Shakes
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:51 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/02/mccollum-hate-mail.php?page=1
― goole, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
I like how people send things like that and think the fax number isn't recorded.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
Holy shit: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/report-wis-dem-state-senators-leave-state-to-block-budget-quorum.php?ref=fpa
Following a walkout by the state Senate Democrats, depriving Republicans of the three-fifths majority needed to pass the budget and its controversial anti-public union provisions, the NBC affiliate in Madison now reports that sources say the Dems have left the state entirely.This comes after the state Senate majority leader said that the State Patrol could be called in to round up the Dems. However, leaving for another state would presumably place the legislators beyond the state's jurisdiction. (Fun fact: The state Senate leader and the Assembly Speaker are brothers -- and the new head of the State Patrol is their father.)
This comes after the state Senate majority leader said that the State Patrol could be called in to round up the Dems. However, leaving for another state would presumably place the legislators beyond the state's jurisdiction. (Fun fact: The state Senate leader and the Assembly Speaker are brothers -- and the new head of the State Patrol is their father.)
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)
Memories of Texas there. But talk about nepotism!
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
http://twitpic.com/40tax9
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
the American public doesn't understand or even want to hear about economics. they like watching people fight.
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
because journalists have abandoned their responsibility to study and explain. Don't blame the public.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
the existence of Politico is a rebuke to serious journalism.
eh there's plenty of blame to go around!
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)
i don't think the public has ever understood economics or ever will (economists don't even!) but there was always a sense that, away from the cameras, politicians had to work it out based on the real numbers. now, i'm not so sure.
― goole, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
it doesn't help that the majority party in the House is now being dictated to by a bunch of complete idiots who don't understand basic public policy and have no interest in doing so
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)
I mean, look: now the Real Story in Madison becomes the flight of the Dems. NPR ran a 10-minute long segment in which the union chief and the governor each had his say. A pretty good piece, and far longer than I'd imagine one of the cable channels would air. But NPR made no attempt to check each man's facts. What would the governor's proposal mean to a middle-aged teacher earning a five-figure salary?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:50 (fourteen years ago)
it ran yesterday
tpm is also running a story that the 'budget deficit' in WI is caused entirely by the new governor's initiatives, and wrecking bargaining rights wouldn't change that anyway...
― goole, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
What would the governor's proposal mean to a middle-aged teacher earning a five-figure salary?
i've read a bunch of stories with this kind of data, like:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17wisconsin.html
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:57 (fourteen years ago)
and this is an op/ed, but still: http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=32238
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)
nonetheless does anyone think any of this is going to affect Republicans' drive to pass this thing? Cuz I sure don't. this is just a larger part of a national pattern - gut everything, decimate public services, and then they'll all be voted out in a couple years. damage will be done already though.
― never meant to heart anyone (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-dem-senator-posts-brb-message-on-facebook.php
― goole, Thursday, 17 February 2011 22:37 (fourteen years ago)
HERO
― teenage cream (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 17 February 2011 22:45 (fourteen years ago)
it's lol but come on this is just a delaying tactic that won't actually accomplish anything
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 22:47 (fourteen years ago)
Pretty much, unless there's some sort of advanced/immediate recall thing in Wisconsin we're unaware of.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 February 2011 22:48 (fourteen years ago)
Doesn't it give the employees another 24 hours to use the media to tip public opinion further against governor walker?
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Thursday, 17 February 2011 23:34 (fourteen years ago)
and why would he care about that
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 23:37 (fourteen years ago)
Not trying to be dim, but the state senate still needs to pass it, right? So...are all of those votes unswayable by an entire country focused on what an indefensible action it would be to vote for it?
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Thursday, 17 February 2011 23:42 (fourteen years ago)
Republicans control the Senate by a 19-to-14 margin, but 20 senators — and thus, at least one Democrat — are needed to vote on a bill.
at some point those Democrats are going to have to return to the state. then they will have to vote. All 14 will vote against it. all 19 Republicans will vote for it, and the bill will pass. why should Wisconsin Republicans give two shits what other states think?
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 23:44 (fourteen years ago)
like I think you're giving the Republicans too much credit for being rational actors here. they are ideologues. and they are stupid.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 February 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
they might give two shits about what their own constituents think. AFAIK not everyone who is a public employee is a democrat.
The uproar is more about the attempt to strip away the public employee's collective right to bargain then about the sacrificing some of their paychecks. The longer this protest goes on and delays a final action, the more opportunities there are to remove the language that strips away the bargaining rights.
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Friday, 18 February 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php
"Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control," says Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future -- a public interest think tank. "He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts... so he could rush through these other changes."
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:03 (fourteen years ago)
AFAIK not everyone who is a public employee is a democrat.
lol I wouldn't be so sure about this, particularly in Wisconsin
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:07 (fourteen years ago)
have you no shame etc
where is Mike Pence RIP thread
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
Mike Pence is, unfortunately, some kind of Weeble -- I thought he was done for when he ran his mouth to China about US financial positions on his trip there in 2009 or so, but lo, he is still with us.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:33 (fourteen years ago)
The right has really gone batshit over the news in Wisconsin.
A Streak of Castroism in WisconsinFebruary 18, 2011 9:53 A.M.By Jay Nordlinger Someone wrote me that the “public employees” in Wisconsin reminded her of Chávez and his goons in Venezuela. Actually, they remind me of Cuba. There, the dictatorship sends its loyalists to the homes of those suspected of not being loyalists. They scream, beat on things, denounce, and threaten. The idea is, the “disloyal” Cubans are supposed to quake in their homes, and they do. These tactics are called actos de repudio — “acts of repudiation.” They are a mainstay of the regime.
In Wisconsin, the schoolteachers and other “public employee” beauties are going to the homes of Republican lawmakers, screaming, denouncing, etc. The situation has gotten very bad. We know where you live. Yesterday, I had a talk with Sen. Randy Hopper, recorded here. Republican lawmakers have received threats, and credible ones: threats to their physical well-being. They are not disclosing their movements, whether they are sleeping in their own homes. They are working with law enforcement on how best to protect themselves and their families.
I admire these Republicans, for persisting in the face of these threats, for continuing to do the job that the voters elected them to do. It’s not easy. It would be more comfortable to give in — to give in to the screaming and violent minority. And I don’t know about you, but I never want to hear from the Left about “civility” again. Ever.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:34 (fourteen years ago)
I just.... white guys lecturing a black woman about abortion. like fuck you fr real.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
a black MOTHER about abortion
It would be more comfortable to give in — to give in to the screaming and violent minority.
can't remember the last time the leftist minority was violent. sorry Jay. it is not 1972.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:36 (fourteen years ago)
disgruntled right-wingers shooting people otoh...
re Pence et al
if you're one of those independent/swing voters who got all het up and voted (R) in the mid-terms because of the economy, i would like to offer a hearty "fuck you in the face"
― ________ (will), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:39 (fourteen years ago)
i know we've been over it, but srsly aside from black bloc lefties and earth first vandals and w/e, where does this myth of the "violent left" come from? is it just a hangover from the 70s?
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:40 (fourteen years ago)
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:41 (fourteen years ago)
although even back then the violence was more heavily on the right-wing side, as rather exhaustively documented in Nixonland
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:42 (fourteen years ago)
it was amazing being at the extremely calm, peaceful, and good-natured protest (lots of families and little kids) down at the madison capitol, then going to a bar and seeing fox news clips about the "violence" and "riots" here.
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:46 (fourteen years ago)
yeah these guys look p violent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc4TXdPxUcE&feature=player_embedded#at=19
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)
You should really tell Nordlinger.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)
Man, bagpipes really nagl in enclosed spaces made of polished stone.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 18 February 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
looking forward to Trumka's speech fwiw
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 18:02 (fourteen years ago)
where does this myth of the "violent left" come from?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 18 February 2011 19:01 (fourteen years ago)
I'm all for the left liberals progressives sane people bringing the State to a grinding halt w/ civil disobedience vs the System to see how fast that gets called "voiolent"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 February 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
9 Dems vote for Pence amendment
Nascar: funded; Planned Parenthood: no funding
good luck USA
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 February 2011 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
good thing it has zero chance of actually becoming law
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 20:01 (fourteen years ago)
i'm not really so mad about the nascar army things (that's my rep btw, hilarious, i agree with pareene fwiw, almost self-parodic white urban liberalism right there)
pence however is disgusting in the extreme. riding the breitbart wave...
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:05 (fourteen years ago)
unless you want a draft the military is going to have to advertise itself to the public. to capture that critical "amped up 17 year old" demo, do you think some quarter page ads in harpers are a better way to go than the side of a racecar? i dunno, could be
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:07 (fourteen years ago)
it's not like this is a hobby horse of mine but "unless you want a draft the military is going to have to advertise itself to the public" doesn't really seem self-evidently true to me
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 February 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)
I am cool with us just getting rid of the military
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 20:16 (fourteen years ago)
I feel like military tv ads are generally pretty well done, if I weren't so against dying/killing/the military I would have joined by now
― iatee, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
one thing I don't get though is 'army of one', like other than a phrase that sounds cool how are you supposed to interpret that?
― iatee, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:21 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, I was gonna say, it's also based on the assumption of wanting the military to be the same size or larger than the one we have now.
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Friday, 18 February 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
I lol when vets point out to me that the motto "Army of One" basically is completely antithetical to how an army should function
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)
well a fuller sentence would be "given the staffing needs of a military that's doing what american power demands of it, and unless you want a draft, it needs to advertise, because young people nearly always have something better to do"
if you want to shrink the military that isn't going to be done by having the services miss their recruitment targets, as we've seen through this decade.
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-draws-the-line-on-austerity-opportunism-and-class-war/
this is as good a roundup/contextualization as i've seen
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
i loved that navy seals commercial? the one with the beach at night
almost made me join the navy seals
― max, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:50 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmta7GwXCpo
― max, Friday, 18 February 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
so sick
anyone think the Dem legislators running away is pathetic though?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
nope!
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
I think it's funny.
also pointless
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
i don't really begrudge mcconnell his routine filibuster threats either. the rules are the rules, abuse them all you like, if it gets you what you want.
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 21:52 (fourteen years ago)
it might not be pointless if public opinion tips against the governor. that seems to be the whole point, pull some extraordinary stunt to give the protests time to develop. had they stayed indoors like good little democrats and gotten rolled over, that would be that.
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 21:53 (fourteen years ago)
if public opinion tips against the governor.
would put money on this not happening
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 21:57 (fourteen years ago)
I have to admit that a part of me is dreading a future debate where republican State senators disappear to another state. It's like a new version of the filibuster.
Still don't get why delaying a vote is pointless. It may still pass in WI, but every day these protests continue it sends a powerful message to other diabolical republican governors to think twice about fucking over unions in such a transparent manner. It also helps build support for unions by keeping the issue in the headlines.
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Friday, 18 February 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
Or shames a legislator into changing sides, but, yeah, not gonna happen.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
Well, serious question: can someone link to an account of one of the state legislators actually in the crowd rallying support? If this is true, then I'll hold my tongue.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
If there's even a 1% chance of it succeeding it was worth trying.
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:01 (fourteen years ago)
if they were in the crowd they'd be in wisconsin and, i believe, subject to the state patrol putting them in cuffs.
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 22:02 (fourteen years ago)
A more impressive feat of histrionics than hiding in a hotel room.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
I think you guys are overlooking the fact that angry union demonstrations galvanizes the right-wing as much as it does the left. take that Nordlinger bit linked above - these kinds of tactics don't change anybody's mind, they just make the fighting louder.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
like, nobody who voted for Walker is looking at these demonstrations/observing the Dem tactics and thinking "gee, maybe they have a point." NOBODY
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:04 (fourteen years ago)
You're totally wrong. I've been speaking to lots of people otherwise uninterested in union politics who are paying attention to this and who are sympathetic to the protestors.
― Mordy, Friday, 18 February 2011 22:05 (fourteen years ago)
When the same skedaddling happened in Texas eight years ago for different reasons, I was pretty contemptuous too. I don't see the gain -- more photos of Dems looking like cowards.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:05 (fourteen years ago)
and i assume there are people who voted for Walker for whatever dumbass reason (to punish the dems for not fixing the economy quick enough) who are regretting that vote right now
― Mordy, Friday, 18 February 2011 22:06 (fourteen years ago)
Alfred, who are the Democrats that look like cowards here?
on the other hand, I didn't hesitate for a second signing that Planned Parenthood petition going around today.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:06 (fourteen years ago)
I already answered that question, Mordy. But I'll totally retract my statements if these protests have a visible effect.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:07 (fourteen years ago)
They already had a visible effect. They delayed the vote.
― Mordy, Friday, 18 February 2011 22:08 (fourteen years ago)
Eh, the right wing has been attacking unions for many decades. They're already 100% antiunion. Rank and file republicans know that they're "supposed" to hate unions.
It's not so clearcut on the left. Sure, there's general support for unions, but not enough to prevent the unions from being fucked. They need to be galvanized, and having this in the news helps.
In other words, this issue is like pouring boiling water into two bowls of water: the right is already boiling and it hardly makes a difference, the left was lukewarm and it could make a huge difference in the longterm.
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:09 (fourteen years ago)
That's true.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:09 (fourteen years ago)
Also wtf at anyone complaining about members of the public protesting and participating politically. I guess shit was better when everyone just rolled over!
― Mordy, Friday, 18 February 2011 22:10 (fourteen years ago)
the governor lost the pack on this one! people power!
xps, trying to block delay's redistricting? that was worth doing too. i dunno if it looked like cowardice to the people who voted in those peoples' districts. i have to admit i don't know how that one shook out.
― goole, Friday, 18 February 2011 22:10 (fourteen years ago)
I don't get this cowardice thing at all. Afaic it took tremendous courage to do what they did.
And despite shakey's belief that almost all of the public employees that are getting fucked are democrats, a sizeable portion must have voted for walker, and like mordy said, they may be questioning that decision right now (probably not because of the collective bargaining stuff, but because of the paycut. Republicans love the idea of spending decreases - as long as it doesn't happen to them)
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:13 (fourteen years ago)
m-m-m-m
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 18 February 2011 23:12 (fourteen years ago)
mordy otm
>because of the paycut.
and the fact that he boldly stated that he had already put the fucking National Guard on standby to deal with the schoolteachers should any of them strike
that is the critical outrage that all Fox News / Corner coverage is very careful to omit. that scenario literally rolls the clock back to the 1910-30's.
― Milton Parker, Friday, 18 February 2011 23:23 (fourteen years ago)
All the real and symbolic machinations on the part of local Republican leaders and the Republican-lead House are like a not-so-sneak preview of what will go down if and when they snag the Senate, let alone the presidency again. You'd think they want to save a few surprises for us or something!
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 February 2011 23:25 (fourteen years ago)
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, February 18, 2011 5:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
http://i.min.us/ijif9S.jpg
state senator lena taylor before she went on the lam
― max, Friday, 18 February 2011 23:28 (fourteen years ago)
sorry for the size i got it from her facebook
― max, Friday, 18 February 2011 23:29 (fourteen years ago)
Hawaii Legislature passes civil unions bill; governor will sign it
― gr8080, Friday, 18 February 2011 23:32 (fourteen years ago)
god DAMN it Joe Klein:
He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time.He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time.He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time.He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time.He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time.
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Saturday, 19 February 2011 00:39 (fourteen years ago)
Frankly haven't followed the WI thing at all...
Pelosi told staff that govt shutdown is likely.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/18/133868759/if-government-shutdown-happens-prepare-for-collateral-damage
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 19 February 2011 01:33 (fourteen years ago)
needless to say, perhaps, but Fat Governor supports Scott Walker's union-busting ways.
tho' Krispy Kreme will get his ass handed to him if tries something like this up here ...
― Phuc Duong Bich (Eisbaer), Saturday, 19 February 2011 01:58 (fourteen years ago)
this thing will pass as soon as one of the Dems gives in and returns to the capitol.
DeLay won his redistricting fight in Texas iirc
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 19 February 2011 02:45 (fourteen years ago)
Good range of responses. I stand corrected.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 February 2011 02:49 (fourteen years ago)
out of those, this is the most effective, I think:
The new Governor and Legislature passed business tax cuts that took the current budget from black to red to create an exploitable crisis. The collective bargaining agreement that existed had expired and been extended and the Governor exercised the option to cancel the extension with 30 days notice. The Governor made no effort to negotiate or ask for concessions, even though a number of the unions had expressed a willingness negotiate including increasing the share they paid for their benefits....Collectively this appears more about punishing a political constituency that didn't support you than trying to solve a budget issue. Especially when you realize that the four unions (law enforcement and police unions) that are exempt from these changes are the only four that endorsed Walker.
...Collectively this appears more about punishing a political constituency that didn't support you than trying to solve a budget issue. Especially when you realize that the four unions (law enforcement and police unions) that are exempt from these changes are the only four that endorsed Walker.
― you are taking me apart, Lisa! (Z S), Saturday, 19 February 2011 03:13 (fourteen years ago)
Trying to paint firefighters as rabble-rousing Communists is about as nagl as can be believed in 2011. I will prolley be posting the "stop calling 911" excerpt on Facebook next Sept 11.
― kingkongvsbasedgodzilla (Drugs A. Money), Saturday, 19 February 2011 03:45 (fourteen years ago)
tea party assholes to counter-rally in madison tomorrow
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Tea_Party_Groups_Plan_Wisconsin_Rally_116496868.html
this whole situation is a joke. just raise taxes on rich fucks already
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:24 (fourteen years ago)
Open Letter to Westboro Baptist ChurchAN OPEN LETTER FROM ANONYMOUSFebruary 16, 2011TO THE CONGREGANTS OF WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH: We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People - have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism. We have always regarded you and your ilk as an assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots, however benign, who act out for the sake of attention & in the name of religion. Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are, we have hitherto allowed you to continue preaching your benighted gospel of hatred and your theatrical exhibitions of, not only your fascist views, but your utter lack of Christ-like attributes. You have condemned the men and women who serve, fight, and perish in the armed forces of your nation; you have prayed for and celebrated the deaths of young children, who are without fault; you have stood outside the United States National Holocaust Museum, condemning the men, women, and children who, despite their innocence, were annihilated by a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance. Rather than allowing the deceased some degree of peace and respect, you instead choose to torment, harass, and assault those who grieve. Your demonstrations and your unrelenting cascade of disparaging slurs, unfounded judgments, and prejudicial innuendos, which apparently apply to every individual numbered amongst the race of Man - except for yourselves - has frequently crossed the line which separates Freedom of Speech from deliberately utilizing the same tactics and methods of intimidation and mental & emotional abuse that have been previously exploited and employed by tyrants and dictators, fascists and terrorist organizations throughout history. ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites. Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines. The warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you.http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=449
February 16, 2011
TO THE CONGREGANTS OF WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH:
We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People - have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism. We have always regarded you and your ilk as an assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots, however benign, who act out for the sake of attention & in the name of religion. Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are, we have hitherto allowed you to continue preaching your benighted gospel of hatred and your theatrical exhibitions of, not only your fascist views, but your utter lack of Christ-like attributes. You have condemned the men and women who serve, fight, and perish in the armed forces of your nation; you have prayed for and celebrated the deaths of young children, who are without fault; you have stood outside the United States National Holocaust Museum, condemning the men, women, and children who, despite their innocence, were annihilated by a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance. Rather than allowing the deceased some degree of peace and respect, you instead choose to torment, harass, and assault those who grieve. Your demonstrations and your unrelenting cascade of disparaging slurs, unfounded judgments, and prejudicial innuendos, which apparently apply to every individual numbered amongst the race of Man - except for yourselves - has frequently crossed the line which separates Freedom of Speech from deliberately utilizing the same tactics and methods of intimidation and mental & emotional abuse that have been previously exploited and employed by tyrants and dictators, fascists and terrorist organizations throughout history.
ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites. Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines.
The warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you.
http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=449
Silly, yes. Self-important, yes. The slashdot page where i found this was full of people zinging ANONYMOUS, particularly for saying they are for free speech while in fact they want to silence the WBC. I guess they deserve that for being so self-important. But still, if WBC can protest at funerals, I say ANONYMOUS can protest on the web.
Didn't really know where else to put this other than politics.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:24 (fourteen years ago)
Walker, a tea party favorite, says the changes are needed to help balance the state's budget.
Tea party groups planning the Saturday rally issued a statement saying Wisconsin's elected officials need to keep their promises to cut spending.
THE RALLIES AREN'T ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE SPENDING CUTS
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:25 (fourteen years ago)
what kind of capacity for cognitive dissonance do you have to blame public workers for budget problems, when we just lost like $10 trillion dollars two year ago, due to CDOs and AIG and lehman brothers and shit? so many people falling for the line about teachers being to blame is a really bad sign that this country's pretty much fucked
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)
o.k. folks. i am on the ground floor (sometimes literally) of this stuff and let me know if you want updates. also if you are wisc. and want to help get my contact info from jordan or something.
re. this:
like, nobody who voted for Walker is looking at these demonstrations/observing the Dem tactics and thinking "gee, maybe they have a point." NOBODY― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:04 (Yesterday) Permalink
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 February 2011 22:04 (Yesterday) Permalink
i have talked--in person and on the phone--with dozens and dozens of people who voted for walker and are now going "WTF." i mean, it's idiotic that they didn't see this coming, but i think a lot of people went, "hey, this guy is new, let's try him," and are now wondering what the hell they unleashed. seriously.
that said, barring some amazing thing happening the bill is probably going to pass, and i'm going to lose my union--among other, more horrible things.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:34 (fourteen years ago)
what kind of capacity for cognitive dissonance do you have to blame public workers for budget problems, when we just lost like $10 trillion dollars two year ago, due to CDOs and AIG and lehman brothers and shit? so many people falling for the line about teachers being to blame is a really bad sign that this country's pretty much fucked― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, February 18, 2011 11:31 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, February 18, 2011 11:31 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
100% agree with you. This country is fucked, and there is no looking back.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:37 (fourteen years ago)
that is excellent news amateurist about people changing their minds about that asshole. i hope wisco recalls his ass. this is all so sick and wrong. i feel like the privileged are at war with the rest of us. we're not the ones who tanked the economy! taxes are historically low! for fuck's sake, suck it up and leave the rest of us alone
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:39 (fourteen years ago)
to recall him we have to wait after he's been in office a year (next jan.) and then can start collecting signatures. and i think we need like 500,000. so frankly that won't be happening unless... well, it probably won't be happening.
HOWEVER it is entirely within the realm of possibility that we can recall two GOP state senators (some of whom only won by 100-200 votes) and, in a year's time, turn the senate blue--or at least make it a stalemate. but that would take a lot of work and organizing power--and organizing power is going to be fucked when this bill passes and union coffers start running out. my union (a small one) is already pushing into the red just from the last few days. if anyone wants to donate (srsly) contact me.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:42 (fourteen years ago)
btw i can't read through this whole megathread but somebody posted that rachel maddow summary right? i'm not a huge fan, but she does have a clear idea of what the stakes are here. namely the democratic party in about a third of the 50 states.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:43 (fourteen years ago)
i've got a tiny bit of money, if you want to post your union's info, or however you'd want to work it. on wisconsin
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:44 (fourteen years ago)
hey reggie. contact somebody at the UW-Madison TAA (teaching assistants association)--just google it. we also need shit like laser printer cartridges, mini-USB cell phone chargers, etc. send 'em our way. srsly.
btw the dems leaving the state was the ONLY option they had. meanwhile people have been testifying to congresspeople at the capitol about the effects this bill would have for 46 STRAIGHT HOURS. and the capitol has been occupied 24/7 (i slept here two nights ago--wasn't that bad).
i'm not sure what effect all this will have but as someone said above if it has a 1% chance of getting a GOP senator to cry uncle it's worth it.
btw what i've been suggesting is that while they're in exile the dem senators propose their own budget plan that saves even more than walker's (frankly, it wouldn't be as hard as you think). then they can show people that this isn't. about. the. budget. at. all.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:46 (fourteen years ago)
btw if you want to hear about some awesome politicians for a change you could do worse than barbara toles from milwaukee: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/asm17/news/
i won't get into details but she is a CHAMP.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:47 (fourteen years ago)
Admirable, amateurist. Hugs.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:50 (fourteen years ago)
aah, i went on strike with the TAA in 2004, and picketed the sociology building. we won that one. that was just us, though, and the stakes were nothing compared to now. keep the pressure on this asshole. millions and millions of people have your back
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:51 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2504
. The Madison Police Department (MPD) is proud of the way protesters have conducted themselves, and Chief Noble Wray hopes all will continue to exercise civility and decorum.
in the capitol right now, "KILL THE BILL" resonating in my ears.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 04:52 (fourteen years ago)
if there's anything those of us not in WI but sympathetic can do, Amateurist, please let us know -- e.g., contact info, Facebook/Twitter contacts, etc. (besides yourself).
― Phuc Duong Bich (Eisbaer), Saturday, 19 February 2011 05:10 (fourteen years ago)
hmmm, i'll think about that.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 05:11 (fourteen years ago)
The truth is, I think you should give money to the state senate Democratic committee. People here are now realizing that those unsexy state rep elections -- the ones lots of people skip -- matter a lot.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 19 February 2011 05:25 (fourteen years ago)
fuck yes.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 19 February 2011 05:28 (fourteen years ago)
Looks like the state of Wisconsin is (still) screwing over Native Americans as well...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/nyregion/19casino.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 19 February 2011 06:46 (fourteen years ago)
Hoping you win your battle, amateurist.
Meanwhile, Krugman on phony deficit hawkishness and hoe the budget war is all about health care:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 19 February 2011 08:11 (fourteen years ago)
The Casablanca/To Have and Have Not thread led me to stumble over this--I'd never heard it before!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfea6IWiYu0&feature=related
― clemenza, Saturday, 19 February 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
stand with "'americans' for 'prosperity'" (aka the koch bros) against wisconsin's public employees
http://americansforprosperity.org/walker/
i hope the tea baggers get shouted down hard today in madison
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 February 2011 19:49 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz5DZJgclKQ
― Asparagus Peee (Leee), Saturday, 19 February 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
clemenza, Hope used both parties as punchlines pretty routinely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_AgoX_jam8
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 19 February 2011 21:56 (fourteen years ago)
I rather liked this Slacktivist bit. It parallels some of Krugman said, only from another angle, and focuses on bits like this:
To think that cutting humanitarian foreign aid will be of any consequence for balancing America's federal budget is, in fact, stupid -- it betrays an ignorance or rejection of readily available facts. To prioritize cuts to such programs is, in fact, selfish. The priorities revealed in this poll also demonstrate that evangelical voters aren't really concerned about deficits per se -- someone actually concerned about deficits would be obliged to learn at least the most basic facts of the federal budget -- but are instead driven by the fear that somebody else somewhere else might be receiving some benefit that they are not receiving. That is resentment for resentment's sake.
― Crazed Mister Handy (kingfish), Saturday, 19 February 2011 23:48 (fourteen years ago)
that's a great link, thanks. i followed it to "what would jesus cut?"
https://secure3.convio.net/sojo/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=387
we need more stuff like that. the last thirty years have demonstrated that for the most part, until progressives learn how to talk jesus like pros, the selfish libertarian assholes are gonna keep handing us our asses in elections. i get that people of a progressive bent tend to be sophisticated atheists and agnostics and so forth, and that's great, but most of the rest of the country is not, and they're ripe for conservative-style distortions of the bible that appeal to their fears and prejudices and financial worries. if you cede the bible to them, all the technocratic logic in the world means diddly squat to joe oklahoma and jane dakota
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 00:19 (fourteen years ago)
If what you mean is that "people" need to be persuaded again of the good of caring for your neighbor as yourself, then I don't think this is a job for politicians; the problem, if you think it's a problem, is culture-wide. Today's "Third Way" left needs this persuasion as much as my fellow red-staters, if it's even something worth persuasion.
― Euler, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:55 (fourteen years ago)
It also comes off as pretty condescending and disingenuous for a bunch of "sophisticated atheists and agnostics" to argue any points using the bible, doesn't it?
― joygoat, Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:24 (fourteen years ago)
sure, if in fact they are being disingenuous
i do think it's a problem, euler, and i agree that it's culture-wide (including politicians). i wouldn't advocate for the left to go full jeebus or anything but instead to amp up reference to the socialist-friendly teachings of the man when the occasion calls for it. say what you want about al franken, this anglehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7Mmight work a lot better than treating america's vast population of christians as though they're gullible hicks beneath adult conversation. granted, the anti-abortionists and so forth are unlikely to be persuaded by lefties quoting st. john, but church-going independents might appreciate and even respect a progressive who can cite the gospels when pushing for tax hikes. as it is, i feel like one of the reasons those people trend right is because they perceive "elitist" lefties as looking down on believers. to the extent that there's some truth in that perception, it's a problem for the progressive agenda
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
I get where you're coming from but to me it still feels all kinds of wrong to cite religious texts for how someone ought to behave when you yourself are a non-believer. I don't see how there's any way to say "I don't even believe this shit and yet I still know it better than you" and not come across as condescending and elitist.
― joygoat, Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:39 (fourteen years ago)
at the same time tho saying "unless you believe in what I'm citing as my doctrine, you don't get to point out that I'm not following the teachings I advocate" isn't really a good look either imo
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:41 (fourteen years ago)
The way I get around free market Jesus freak/Tealiban types is by repping for the King James Bible as both literacy engine and great work of literature. Then it's easy to talk about what's really in the book in question.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:58 (fourteen years ago)
i don't think atheist progressives should do anything different than what they do, much less wage some stealth campaign or anything. rather, those progressives who aren't total non-believers should be less shy about pointing out the "blessed are the poor" and "rich-man-heaven < camel-needle-eye" stuff when conservative fucks go all voodoo economical. i almost feel like somehow that's taboo, and letting it stay that way cedes powerful rhetorical territory to mammon, as it were
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:59 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.sojo.net/ yo
they seem to have been a lot more active in the run-up to the 2008 election but they've been hitting the christians-help-the-poor message pretty consistently ever since then
― j., Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:59 (fourteen years ago)
I think lots of right-leaning religious people are aware of the incongruity of their alliance with the American right, but rightly see incongruities in switching to the American left. I don't blame them much for this: their issue is really with American-style capitalism & neither mainstream political choice is a choice against that.
― Euler, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
those progressives who aren't total non-believers should be less shy about pointing out the "blessed are the poor" and "rich-man-heaven < camel-needle-eye" stuff
yeah. i think it's possible to cite biblical wisdom without seeming too clingy. that stuff is so manifest in language and culture you're practically spitting idioms.
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:16 (fourteen years ago)
i agree with reggie that arguing the Bible with right-wing clerics is better left to progressives who aren't atheists or agnostics. it might work better with some religions than others - e.g., pointing out to Catholic wingnuts that Catholicism has a very strong social work/justice tradition (which goes well beyond merely obsessing about abortion). the Archbishop of Milwaukee has just spoken out in support of the unionized WI government workers.
― Phuc Duong Bich (Eisbaer), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:18 (fourteen years ago)
eisbaer, i think you're right, and a lot of these people just want to feel like they're being respected. they really do believe, and if someone could speak to them in terms that strike authentic notes, that might help a lot. i think edwards was trying this a little, but well, alison poole and everything
and euler, what you say is true. i also wish there were a viable, electable alternative for people rightly disillusioned with american-style capitalism. i'd add though that a major reason there isn't, is because the old-boy-network money behind reagan also captured the hearts of evangelicals, ripe for courting post-roe v. wade, and with those votes firmly on the ballot, republicans have been running the table ever since. if some evangelicals could be decoupled from the republicans by sincere christianist progressives, i think the political landscape would change for the better. how could this happen? i have no idea. but that journal j posted looks like a great gesture toward addressing this issue
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
and schlump i'd add that since democrats and progressives deigning not to spit those idioms, or to be more cynical, press those buttons, turns off millions of voters, who are easily exploited by fox-style propaganda, couched in end-times imagery and whatnot
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:29 (fourteen years ago)
sorry about that unnecessary "since" in that already knotty sentence. i'm going to go pray to the god of proofreading now
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:34 (fourteen years ago)
I think the idea that the left is mostly atheists while the right is most Christians is pure myth, probably only a little more true than the idea that the left is anti-family and the right is pro-family.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
eh i don't think you have to believe in magical talking snakes, virgin-birthed superheros, faeries and goblins to subscribe to the teachings of Christ
(& apologies if i'm somehow mischaracterizing the argument against atheists using the bible to argue policy)
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
Painting the left with the broad brush of atheism has been a good strategy. Many polls have shown atheists & agnostics are the least trusted religious group, even over the 'dreaded' Muslims!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:42 (fourteen years ago)
it has nothing to do w/ whether or not i buy into the idea that liberals are mostly atheists or agnostics (i don't, BTW). it has more to do w/ the everyday notion that people tend to pay attention to people more like them than those who aren't. with that in mind, it's entirely logical for liberal adherent of whatever religion to speak to other members of that religion in the language/tradition of that religion. (ideally, it also means that someone like me - who is Roman Catholic - wouldn't try to make a religious doctrine-based argument for progressive values to a Pentacostalist or a Presbyterian.)
― Phuc Duong Bich (Eisbaer), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)
whoah. this is pretty awesomehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZsOKNfNkfQ
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
What's the technical word for rule by infants? Neonatarchy?
[The House formally began debate, which is expected to last three days, Tuesday afternoon following some wrangling over the hundreds of amendments lawmakers want to attach to the package.More than 400 amendments were filed Monday night. Among them were a proposal from Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., to eliminate funding for the president's Teleprompter and one from Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, to strip funding for the alteration, repair or improvement of the executive residence of the White House and instead divert that amount to deficit reduction.Womack told Fox News Tuesday afternoon that he pulled his amendment because he wasn't able to get an estimate on how much it would save."I think we made our point," Womack said. "We're asking people to do more with less. And I think the president ought to lead by example. He is already a very gifted speaker. And I think that's one platform he could do without."
Womack told Fox News Tuesday afternoon that he pulled his amendment because he wasn't able to get an estimate on how much it would save.
"I think we made our point," Womack said. "We're asking people to do more with less. And I think the president ought to lead by example. He is already a very gifted speaker. And I think that's one platform he could do without."
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Monday, 21 February 2011 00:24 (fourteen years ago)
http://i52.tinypic.com/nv1gsp.jpghttp://i51.tinypic.com/ieieya.jpghttp://i56.tinypic.com/1z6e22x.jpghttp://i51.tinypic.com/5lrj9f.jpg
― Z S, Monday, 21 February 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
plenty of people would kill to be in a position with 1/100000th the power/influence of a representative. and he uses his opportunity to bring up teleprompters. again. jeeeeeeeeeeezus
― Z S, Monday, 21 February 2011 00:32 (fourteen years ago)
"Mr. Hintz also placed 2nd in the 2003 National Air Guitar championships under the pseudonym, 'Krye Tuff'."
― bamcquern, Monday, 21 February 2011 01:05 (fourteen years ago)
Good way to shave $500 off the deficit!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 21 February 2011 02:45 (fourteen years ago)
so i've been extra bored at work and stuff recently, and therefore actually reading all the political rss feeds i've subscribed to. and, you know, maybe it's the people i'm reading (steve benen seems to be ever-increasingly fatalistic?)
but um the whole situation seems wildly fucked and insoluble based on current politics and our politicians and how do ppl follow this stuff every day without wanting to kill themselves?
is this just the way it goes in an empire in decline?
― mookieproof, Monday, 21 February 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)
The disenfranchised listen to Radiohead.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 February 2011 02:56 (fourteen years ago)
this is just the way it goes in an empire in decline
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 21 February 2011 11:01 (fourteen years ago)
and how do ppl follow this stuff every day without wanting to kill themselves?
there were two real good ny-er articles, one george packer, the other i'm not sure, about the dysfunction of the senate and of the attempt to pass climate legislation - should read them if you've been out of the loop awhile, they're both devastating and will make you want to kill yourself.
assuming that urge is why you got back in the game
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Monday, 21 February 2011 14:40 (fourteen years ago)
looks like the Wisconsin protests/delay tactics are starting to have an effect:
The Wall Street Journal reports that one moderate Republican, state Sen. Dale Schultz, has proposed changing the budget proposal supported by Walker slightly but fundamentally: instead of losing their collective bargaining rights in perpetuity, as the governor wants, they would only lose the right to negotiate for benefits through 2013.Schultz' chief of staff sounded positively Democratic when discussing the proposal with the Journal."Dale is committed to find a way to preserve collective bargaining in the future," he told the paper.
Schultz' chief of staff sounded positively Democratic when discussing the proposal with the Journal.
"Dale is committed to find a way to preserve collective bargaining in the future," he told the paper.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/too-little-too-late-moderate-gop-floats-plan-to-break-wi-impasse.php
― Z S, Monday, 21 February 2011 15:44 (fourteen years ago)
Nice that a temporary suspension of right to bargain is considered the moderate compromise. Fuck these people.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Monday, 21 February 2011 16:46 (fourteen years ago)
i haven't been following this, but i don't even see how this legislation would be constitutional. haven't collective bargaining rights been pretty well established? wtf
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 21 February 2011 16:52 (fourteen years ago)
Most recently wanted to kill myself when I heard some British climate change denier explain away rising global water levels by way of Noah's Ark, explaining that after God flooded the world and killed everyone save Noah and a few others he promised never to do it again. Ergo, there's no way the water levels could be rising. Because God promised. Are you calling God a liar?!?!
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 21 February 2011 17:01 (fourteen years ago)
i'd tell him/her "no, i'm calling God's bagmen liars."
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
the more i read about this the less it makes sense. the governor wants unions to hold ANNUAL votes that require a majority of all members voting "aye" in order to stay in existence?
interesting. maybe the same thing could work for the governorship. to stay in office, he'd need to be re-elected annually by a majority of all state citizens.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:20 (fourteen years ago)
actually an interesting situation:
http://i53.tinypic.com/15mcvig.jpg
and that map provides arguments (some more legitimate than others) for both sides of the spectrum, sigh.
― Z S, Monday, 21 February 2011 17:27 (fourteen years ago)
xp Not just him, the idea of governance at all would have to be voted in, annually. Then the candidates would have to actually run for office.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:28 (fourteen years ago)
haha yes
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:29 (fourteen years ago)
And the threshold the vote has to reach to take effect will be based on the entire population, not just "people who showed up to vote."
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:29 (fourteen years ago)
Map provides evidence of 5 states I don't want to live in, which I already knew but thanks for the visual reminder.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
i'm astonished at OK's color there
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:36 (fourteen years ago)
Good old Texas: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/21/national/main20034291.shtml
― My Urine No Longer Smells Like Asparagus (Leee), Monday, 21 February 2011 20:15 (fourteen years ago)
Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms.
so is Florida.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 February 2011 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
Also: Utah already has it, and Colorado lets campuses opt in/out.
― My Urine No Longer Smells Like Asparagus (Leee), Monday, 21 February 2011 20:20 (fourteen years ago)
Every university police chief in Florida opposes it.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 February 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)
One of my colleagues, who is a hunter & gun owner, plans on wearing a massive pistol to class each day if our state passes such a law.
It's all so dumb; & all this to help the firearms industry cash in.
― Euler, Monday, 21 February 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
(I should add: my colleagues thinks such a law would be idiocy & would only carry to make a point.)
i think...your friend is doin to wrong
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 21 February 2011 23:02 (fourteen years ago)
doin _it_ wrong
so...let's say the government shutdown does happen.
on one hand, there's the 1995-96 experience, which was disastrous for the republicans. on the other, there are some new factors, such as the pace of media coverage, the fact that fox is essentially just a huge bullhorn for the GOP, and the amount of coverage that the tea party gets, that could point things the other way.
just curious how you all think it plays politically?
― Z S, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
can't back this up but considering how things have been going for the last however many years it'll probably be pretty bad.
― Gukbe, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 01:26 (fourteen years ago)
you can say that twice!
― pre-prison, prison, and post-prison (latebloomer), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 02:14 (fourteen years ago)
GW Bush pic up thread a bit makes me think he will finish morphing into Pat Robertson in about five more years.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 03:53 (fourteen years ago)
hey give us money y'all
srsly
http://www.defendwisconsin.org/
― by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 09:03 (fourteen years ago)
And if you can't do that, Ian's Pizza is taking orders from as far away as Egypt to feed protestors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/pizza-latest-weapon-of-protest
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 09:12 (fourteen years ago)
I.... can't resist
http://minnesotaindependent.com/77707/gops-beard-wants-more-coal-plants-because-god-will-fix-global-warming
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 12:32 (fourteen years ago)
Oh, how unusual: a dunderhead from Shakopee.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 12:38 (fourteen years ago)
holy shit @ Beard
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 13:33 (fourteen years ago)
He's like a Christian Scientist who takes it a step further and gets sick on purpose.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 13:42 (fourteen years ago)
I guess this is a consequence of a radical 'faith in Christ alone will redeem you' doctrine
― Mordy, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 13:44 (fourteen years ago)
In that case I'd invite him to do a prayer group at the nearest refinery - plenty of those on the Minnesota River, so he may be breathing the fumes already.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 14:00 (fourteen years ago)
A couple of relatives have sent this to me:
"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.
It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters," - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 14:06 (fourteen years ago)
Sullivan just ran it as well.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 14:08 (fourteen years ago)
fdr also believed that the highest marginal income tax rate should be around 90%. i'd like to see sully run some of that when ranting about the deficit
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 14:18 (fourteen years ago)
not sure how that FDR quote merits anything more than a "huh, welp". dude basically says "collective bargaining between public employees and the gov't is qualitatively different from that which happens between unions and private employers, and merits special consideration"
like, ok?
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 14:21 (fourteen years ago)
Lots of evidence exists that FDR wasn't crazy about collective bargaining, but that statement is a good example of his slipperiness.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 14:48 (fourteen years ago)
http://gawker.com/#!5766823/rush-limbaugh-calls-michelle-obama-fat
i know you have to have a big conversation and explain the ways in which this kinda thing is racist even though it's not racist, but things like this and the 'let's take away his teleprompter' meme are starting to seem super depressing, like they hint at this weird, altered identity in which people are being encouraged to hysterically project alternate realities onto politicians they dislike
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 15:44 (fourteen years ago)
i appreciate sullivan finally realizing that the wisco uproar's about collective bargaining rights and a slimy governorhttp://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/what-did-walker-campaign-on.htmlbut his framing is really shallow. he never considers the potential correlation between how well wisconsin's treated its teachers and how great their student outcomes arehttp://studentactivism.net/2011/02/20/sat-act-unions/
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 15:46 (fourteen years ago)
Sully's still sucking Thatcher's teat like she's the only mother he ever had/only woman he ever loved - strike breaking was a big part of her schtick, as was rhetoric of OOOOOH UNIONS ARE BAD AND '70s.
Seeing as their false god Ronald Reagan suffered through his share of 'prompter jokes, but not a single opponent thought it would be a good idea to TAKE IT AWAY from him or any other elected official, I am inclined to see these instances as not just partisan trolling, but institutionally racist because the people in question seem to think they have the God-given right to micromanage the Obamas in ways no other official or spouse would expect to endure, much less tolerate.
Must be all that overseer-class DNA running wild inside the Rushes of this world, manufacturing barely concealed, weapons-grade cracker resentment.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 15:55 (fourteen years ago)
OTMFM!!!!
― if music be the fuiud of love then piss off (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 16:00 (fourteen years ago)
just curious how you all think (shutdown) plays politically?
They should send Natalie Portman into the galleries to shout her Star Wars "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause" line.
Otherwise, it'll just be the usual "I dunno" from the non-nut public.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 16:21 (fourteen years ago)
"They should send Natalie Portman into the galleries to shout her Star Wars "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause" line."
This immediately made me consider a world where Star Wars I-III were proof that Lucas was a prophet and he was trying to warn us about the decay of civilization but then I literally slapped myself in the face.
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
The FDR thing somebody successfully responded to, but I cant find the link on my phone right now. It's something about how the nature of unionization an collective bargaining changed from the 30's(Wagner Act began in 1935) to the 50's, which FDR was of course not around to see. By the 50s, collec.bargaining was routine and commonplace and resulted both in better conditions for workers, but also better for the companies since you had more productive workers who would stay at the company longer(thus retaining a skilled workforce, and drastically reducing losses to training, turnover, and less-skilled output).
So yeah, basically the FDR thing is a stick to beat their political opponents with used out of the standard blend of either cluelessness or deliberate disingenuousness.
― Crazed Mister Handy (kingfish), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 16:41 (fourteen years ago)
Here's a non-contrarian conservative on Wisconsin (who plays loose with the facts in his editorial like always--George Will):
Walker's calm comportment in this crisis is reminiscent of President Reagan's during his 1981 stand against the illegal strike by air traffic controllers, and Margaret Thatcher's in the 1984 showdown with the miners' union over whether unions or Parliament would govern Britain. Walker, by a fiscal seriousness contrasting with Obama's lack thereof, and Obama, by inciting defenders of the indefensible, have made three things clear:
First, the Democratic Party is the party of government, not only because of its extravagant sense of government's competence and proper scope, but also because the party's base is government employees. Second, government employees have an increasingly adversarial relationship with the governed. Third, Obama's "move to the center" is fictitious.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/21/AR2011022103190.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
the party's base is government employees
I just... waht
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:05 (fourteen years ago)
Love that framing.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
yet in his first graf he disparages them as a tiny minority holding the entire state hostage:
A minority of the minority of Wisconsin residents who work for government (300,000 of them) are resisting changes to benefits that most of Wisconsin's 5.6 million residents resent financing.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:08 (fourteen years ago)
would love to see the sourcing for that last statement btw
George Will's been without a meal ticket since the Bushes ruined his contrarian credentials.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
wish I could SB politicians & pundits... :(
― if music be the fuiud of love then piss off (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
How come no one really thinks about phrases like "the party of government" and turns them back on the ppl who use them? Like, wouldn't you want the party who is billed as being concerned with making sure government actually WORKS in charge of the government?
(Not speaking about this in terms of Democrats being default fantastic and amazing, rather in terms of rhetorical strategy that just seems really fucking obvious...)
― DJP, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:38 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, if these people hate the government so much they should stop running for public office.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:45 (fourteen years ago)
"the entertainment industry is a sick disgrace and will ruin this land for our grandchildren. that's why i have accepted the post of CEO of Universal Studios"
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:46 (fourteen years ago)
I hate the banking industry and know basically nothing about how it works - put me in charge of Goldman Sachs!
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
In my administration you would have been defense secretary, Shakes.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
isn't that what the Big Hollywood website is all about?
xp to Tracer
― goole, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
co-opting this nation's inherent distrust of the gov't is actually kind of brilliant on paper; should be way easier to punch holes in it though...
― if music be the fuiud of love then piss off (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:51 (fourteen years ago)
it's contagious!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/report-indiana-democrats-flee-state-to-shut-down-union-busting-budget-1.php
― goole, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
David Brooks had some really insightful things to say in his latest:
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures,states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don’t have that luxury.Yet I think Governor Walker made a strategic error in setting up this confrontation as he did. The debt problems before us are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That’s not nearly enough to explain current deficits. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises.
Yet I think Governor Walker made a strategic error in setting up this confrontation as he did. The debt problems before us are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That’s not nearly enough to explain current deficits. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises.
but you said...and then you said...and the two don't fit together...and-*head explodes*
― Z S, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:56 (fourteen years ago)
hahahaha this fucking guy
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
you guys should be nicer, sometimes I feel like he's trying really hard to write a good article
― iatee, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:10 (fourteen years ago)
This time he pissed everyone off. Mission accomplished, David!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:12 (fourteen years ago)
This isn't all perfect but all of a sudden I wish that Onion story was true:
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:28 (fourteen years ago)
It's amazing how smart Ike has gotten in the last 50 years.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:31 (fourteen years ago)
When you're sitting around in a grave you might as well read up on things.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, great quote. I posted it in the Cold War Prez thread. After twenty years in the wilderness, the GOP was shocked when Ike had no intention of gutting the New Deal.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.extratextual.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ImperialWalker-1024x768.jpg
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 19:23 (fourteen years ago)
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/rumsfeldmemo.jpg
― Mordy, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 19:24 (fourteen years ago)
so glad John Stewart's on board with helping Rumsfeld sell a few books
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 19:53 (fourteen years ago)
What a talent Rummy had for compressing complex geopolitical issues into thirty word memos.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:01 (fourteen years ago)
That Ike letter is great. Could have been written yesterday!
why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?
Sincerely,Dwight D. Eisenhower Barack H. Obama
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:02 (fourteen years ago)
I know right?
"btw Somalia seems broken, plz fix k thx"
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
couldn't make heads or tails of this sry
― Mordy, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
jesus that's incredible.
it's not the compression that's amazing to me, it's... imagine the mind that thinks, boy, pakistan, pretty fucked up over there. really calls for a doug feith memo!
― goole, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:06 (fourteen years ago)
YOU BETTER SEND THOSE PROPOSALS SOON, DOUG FEITH
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:07 (fourteen years ago)
Rumsfeld is on the Daily Show this week
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
for all the anti-gov't, anti-public-sector hate coming out of dudes like gov. walker and the right, it seems pretty clear to me that the mentality of rumsfeld and cheney was formed entirely and solely by the context of decades working in the bowels of US gov. the right-wing goals don't really matter -- who else but a long-time bureaucrat could think that the first step to making real changes to the real world is to get the right guy to make juuust the right memo to stick in front of the right people?
― goole, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:13 (fourteen years ago)
oh! didn't realize xp
― Mordy, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:15 (fourteen years ago)
Well, I can't think of another time in American history when two chiefs of staff from the same administration acquired so much power thirty years later.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:16 (fourteen years ago)
being COS will teach you lots about memo writing!
People like Rumsfeld, who were powerful multi-millionares well before the Bush era, have nothing to fear from people like Jon Stewart. Their hubris and ego are unparalleled. But touring the book (that is, touring the ego) makes appearing on "The Daily Show" irresistible to Rumsfeld, and in turn this is likely the only chance for Stewart to ever have him on his show. When Cheney tours his inevitable heart-healthy cook book I bet the same thing happens. One only hopes that Stewart, similarly with nothing to lose (and no pressure to retain decorum) brings the heat that he otherwise seems to reserve solely for CNN hosts.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
Rummy's back in Charm Mode. Note all the "goodness gracious" and "heavens to Betsy"s he's dropping in interviews.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:20 (fourteen years ago)
no matter what Stewart does all it will amount to is PR for Rumsfeld's book. fuck that shit. dude is a war criminal.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
well, heavens to betsy, a war criminal!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:25 (fourteen years ago)
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)
goole otm about that memo. "issues w/ various countries" would be a good name for a book about bush-era foreign policy
― max, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
why, goodness gracious, don't be so flippant.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
still kinda amazed he had the balls to call his book Known and Unknown
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
BTW people showing up in droves outside the Ohio statehouse to protest SB5, our version of the Wisconsin nonsense.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/progressohio/5468530461/
― All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should ha (Phil D.), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
Reich has it down cold.
http://robertreich.org/post/3353591266
But what is the answer to the question he poses?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 22:30 (fourteen years ago)
Kevin Drums nails it too.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 February 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
the answer is for the federal government to come down firmly on the side of workers trying to organize.
fat chance of THAT happening with THIS democratic party, though (even if they magically got their filibuster-proof Congress). don't wanna harsh Barry's mellow (or do anything that will dry up the money from the "enlightened" capitalists & financiers that are now its true kingmakers).
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better?!? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 04:03 (fourteen years ago)
So, Chicago, remember now not to do anything "fucking retarded."
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 05:13 (fourteen years ago)
yeah the sad thing about robert reichs article is that the dems are all about massaging the balls of the rich too, just in different ways
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 06:03 (fourteen years ago)
Some stupidity.
The Twitter account in question, where the steady stream of posts mysteriously stopped flowing on the 20th.
The associated blog, which had been silent for some months until, again, the 20th.
It is to laugh. Isn't it?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:20 (fourteen years ago)
jonathan chait has a post about someone who pranked gov. walker pretending to be david koch
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/84017/scott-walker-talks-david-koch
but the site he links to, buffalobeast.com, is down right now. fissshhy!!!
― goole, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:30 (fourteen years ago)
In addition to that, Ned, Fr33 R3pub1ic wants armed counterprotestors to show up at a pro-labor rally in Atlanta.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:38 (fourteen years ago)
Aw, how sweet. They are serious people, after all.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:39 (fourteen years ago)
koch bros already hiring in wisconsin, planning on no-bid buys of wisconsin's power plantshttp://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/part-budget-fix-gov-walker-would-rathon wisconsin
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:42 (fourteen years ago)
I now bemusingly note that the fellow behind the stupidity I noted a few posts back has removed his blog. Pobrecito.
His Twitter remains for now. And people have something to say to him about it.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:53 (fourteen years ago)
no one talking about the administration ceasing to prosecute DOMA cases?
― max, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:43 (fourteen years ago)
I had a whole rant prepared but it seems the only thing on CNN is a "BREAKING" headline so maybe it's just lack of information
― DJP, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)
tpm has the full statement
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/obama_doj_say_part_of_doma_is_unconstitutional_will_not_defend_it_in_court.php
― goole, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)
ahaha, hope Maggie Gallagher is choking on her own bile right now
― old man yells at poop first thing in the morning (pixel farmer), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:54 (fourteen years ago)
Fuck yes.
Now let's do something about the GOP's comprehensive, multi-level plan to destroy everyone who's not rich.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/data/roadbike/500/NukeOrbit.jpg
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:00 (fourteen years ago)
― goole, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:30 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
it's been up and down, probably due to crazy traffic
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:06 (fourteen years ago)
Awesome re: DOMA. put a fork in it.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:08 (fourteen years ago)
Stab it with knives, yay!
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:14 (fourteen years ago)
so if the DOJ doesn't defend, that means that the original rulings striking them down as unconstitutional stand, yes...?
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:18 (fourteen years ago)
ok, tho, they can do that?
― goole, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:21 (fourteen years ago)
huh ok the statement is pretty interesting -- different precedents re: sexuality in different appeals circuits. wild.
― goole, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
Hi dere Maggie
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
This tactic may backfire however: It opens up the pathway for the House to intervene to defend the law.
And Boehner's all "UH" right now at having to do that.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:44 (fourteen years ago)
Prank call was legit: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/governor_walkers_office_confir.html
― clotpoll, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:53 (fourteen years ago)
the neat thing about the prank call is it confirms his belief. he believes the 'people' are with him on this. the 68,000 people outside are just a minority; the several thousand tea partiers that Koch had to bus in from other towns actually represent the majority.
Believe!
UPDATED: Fox Reverses Poll Results To Falsely Claim Most Americans Favor Ending Collective Bargaining
On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed, along with an on-screen graphic, that a recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that "61 percent" of Americans are in favor of taking away collective bargaining rights from public unions. In fact, Fox aired the results of the poll completely backward: the Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to taking away collective bargaining rights.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201102230006
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:02 (fourteen years ago)
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:18 PM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― goole, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:21 PM (41 minutes ago)
isn't this the same thing we were talking about re: DADT? as far as i can tell, yeah, they can do that
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.
Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.
― goole, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
And that's that for Jeff Cox:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26969006/detail.html
Gratifyingly quick, really.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)
FOR GREAT JUSTICE. First that fool at Powerline, now this guy. Couldn't happen to a more fitting bunch of people.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:58 (fourteen years ago)
Editor's Note: Jeff Cox is the son of 6News reporter Norman Cox.
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:03 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ Editor's Note
xp!
― DJP, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:08 (fourteen years ago)
Love the timing of this DOMA announcement. Just as all the Republicans are getting worked up and the Tea Partiers are out counterprotesting Unions, Obama declares gay marraige is protected by the constitution. Quick! run home and get the sanctity of marraige signs!
If there's one thing they care about more than union-busting, it's gay-bashing. I can hear the koch bros now, "Wait, wait, pay no attention to those men tuxedos kissing eachother - collective bargaining is the real evil!"
― BrianB, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
this is some interesting timing given all the Arab stuff on the union conflag
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)
i know we are generally loath to talk about the "game" side of this but i have to say the DOMA thing, besides being the right thing to do, seems like a pretty smart political move. i imagine the last thing boehner wants right now is a large public in-party fight about gay marriage when the GOP is supposed to be working on budget stuff
― max, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
hey Michelle Bachmann's been boning up on the Constitution with her weekly study group, surely she can step in and head a defense on behalf of the House leadership
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:39 (fourteen years ago)
Boehner spox on DOMA: Prez shld explain why "now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”Twitter - 1 hour ago
This fucking guy.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
ans: because your side is a bunch of dicks
― DJP, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
BTW not even two months ago John Boehner was doing this:
Two GOP senators and 37 House Republicans have jumped into a legal battle over the status of gay marriage in Washington, D.C., the Washington Post reports.
The 39 GOP members, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum the legalization of gay marriage. Constitutionally, Congress has ultimate authority over laws that govern the District, the brief reportedly points out, explaining the congressmen's involvement in the issue.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty last month signed a bill, which was passed by the D.C. city council 11 to 2, legalizing gay marriage in the District. It is now under a requisite 30-day legislative review.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
Whoops, that's from 2010, not 2011. Still, fuck a John Boehner.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
lolol
Boehner's response also lol in its whininess
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)
CRACKING ME UP!
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
let's do something noncontroversial like permanently ending all arts funding (hit the single gays where it hurts)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
in the balls?
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
in the drag balls
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)
i'd love to hear liberals get this blunt -- of course, then we'll hear endless flatulence about "the end of civility in public discourse" from the likes of limbaugh et. al. (which would have the added bonus of being genuinely funny considering the source).
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better?!? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 22:51 (fourteen years ago)
Ask and ye shall receive: ILX alum Pareene posts a rundown of the NRO's reactions to the DOMA change
http://www.salon.com/news/gay_marriage/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/corner_doma_response
― Crazed Mister Handy (kingfish), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:12 (fourteen years ago)
Cox realizes he did a boo-boo, cries:
Cox told 6News' Joanna Massee on Wednesday that his Twitter comments were intended to be satirical."I think this whole situation is a bit ridiculous. Public employees don't lose their own First Amendment rights, especially on their own time and own resources by virtue of their public employment," he said. "I think we're getting down a slippery slope here in terms of silencing people who disagree."By phone, journalist Weinstein said Cox's comments made him uncomfortable."We thought that we had a responsibility to report these public statements of a public servant to really the people of the state that he serves," he said.Lawyer Kevin Betz called Cox's comments appalling and said he thought there could be more repercussions."As a lawyer, he should be held to even higher standards," Betz said. "Potentially, there are disciplinary commission issues that may or not be raised."Cox said he believes the Wisconsin protesters have a right to voice their opinions and regrets his choice of words."I think, in this day and age, that tweet was not a good idea," he said. "In terms of that language, I'm not going to use it anymore."
"I think this whole situation is a bit ridiculous. Public employees don't lose their own First Amendment rights, especially on their own time and own resources by virtue of their public employment," he said. "I think we're getting down a slippery slope here in terms of silencing people who disagree."
By phone, journalist Weinstein said Cox's comments made him uncomfortable.
"We thought that we had a responsibility to report these public statements of a public servant to really the people of the state that he serves," he said.
Lawyer Kevin Betz called Cox's comments appalling and said he thought there could be more repercussions.
"As a lawyer, he should be held to even higher standards," Betz said. "Potentially, there are disciplinary commission issues that may or not be raised."
Cox said he believes the Wisconsin protesters have a right to voice their opinions and regrets his choice of words.
"I think, in this day and age, that tweet was not a good idea," he said. "In terms of that language, I'm not going to use it anymore."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:31 (fourteen years ago)
But really this says it all:
http://twitter.com/bullfarm4/status/40550653063471104
it's funny that glen greenwald thinks that obama is actually a hardcore centrist operating under the guise of being a lefty while stanley kurtz thinks that obama is actually a hardcore lefty operating under the guise of being a centrist
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:33 (fourteen years ago)
Ideologues unable to envision states of mind other than their precious selves and all their imaginary enemies shocker.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:34 (fourteen years ago)
lol "hardcore centrist"
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:35 (fourteen years ago)
that's ya boy, kev
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:36 (fourteen years ago)
Meanwhile, she is on a spiritual journey.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:37 (fourteen years ago)
well i'm pretty sure everyone on this thread thinks the general population's preception of obama is further left than he or his policies are xp
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
someone call julia roberts, i'm envisioning a sequel
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:39 (fourteen years ago)
Does she even have a passport?
― anna sui generis (suzy), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:40 (fourteen years ago)
Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) held a tense press conference Wednesday afternoon, following the revelation that he had a 20-minute phone conversation with a prank caller pretending to be Republican financier David Koch, a call in which Walker and "Koch" discussed possible ways to disrupt the protests against his budget bill, and to bring the Democrats back to the Capitol.[...]The first questioner asked Walker whether he could be trusted to negotiate in good faith, given he had discussed with "Koch" methods of tricking the Democrats into coming back to the Capitol building, and after he alluded to having considered bringing "troublemakers" into the crowds."For us I think it's real simple. First I want to say I take phone calls all the time," Walker said, before being interrupted by a reporter in the crowd who yelled, "Not mine!."
A+++ to that reporter.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)
But this is straight out of Banana Republic 101:
When the Q&A was over, Democratic state Rep. Brett Hulsey -- who had gotten in the room before the press conference began, took the governor's podium to give his own remarks and to take questions from reporters.At this point, some young staffers from the governor's office opened the double-doors wide open -- so that the sounds of the thousands of protesters came pouring in, drowning out Hulsey. The reporters then asked for the doors to be closed, but the young men stayed at the doors, keeping them fully open.
At this point, some young staffers from the governor's office opened the double-doors wide open -- so that the sounds of the thousands of protesters came pouring in, drowning out Hulsey. The reporters then asked for the doors to be closed, but the young men stayed at the doors, keeping them fully open.
I mean, honest to fuck? Really?
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:59 (fourteen years ago)
lol i noticed that the indy dude was a chargers fan
― mookieproof, Thursday, 24 February 2011 00:22 (fourteen years ago)
i'm pretty sure everyone on this thread thinks the general population's preception of obama is further left than he or his policies are
The segment of the general population which is keenly aware that Obama is more or less Bush... mostly doesn't vote. You know, the silent plurality.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 February 2011 03:37 (fourteen years ago)
so can i just...
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/02/22/conservatism-101
please please listen to this 19 year old Brown sophomore's voice.
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:13 (fourteen years ago)
omg!!!
― j., Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:28 (fourteen years ago)
he sounds like he has a pipe clenched between his teeth
― j., Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:29 (fourteen years ago)
there's no way
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:30 (fourteen years ago)
there's just absolutely no way
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)
no way at all.
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)
http://images.wikia.com/familyguy/images/3/34/Jamesbottomtooth3.png
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)
i mean, i hope there's nothing medically wrong w/ him cuz that's what it sounds like
lol cameron frye comment otm
― bnw, Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)
it sounds like he doesn't have the top half of a face
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)
how is 'letting students take hold of their own education' a conservative principle??
― j., Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)
holy shit
― iatee, Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:33 (fourteen years ago)
could it be? http://www.facebook.com/#!/terrence.george
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:34 (fourteen years ago)
hey when academia has been overrun and perverted by post-modern radicals, what are you gonna do?
xxpost
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:34 (fourteen years ago)
I know ppl @ brown and I am investigating this.
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:34 (fourteen years ago)
dude. I feel... like he's in white face w/ this voice? Is that racist? Am I racist?
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:35 (fourteen years ago)
i don't know what to think
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:36 (fourteen years ago)
SALUBRIOUS
― j., Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:37 (fourteen years ago)
I think we're all
http://image.trustedopinion.com/getting-played_photo-picture-gallery-1_640x480.jpeg
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:38 (fourteen years ago)
I wonder if it's just an affectation, like when some kid at college starts wearing turtlenecks and hornrims and saying 'cat' all the time trying to be Allen Ginsberg...maybe he's deliberately trying to sound like Buckley?? Otherwise I'm out of ideas. Christ on a cracker.
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:47 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfpehY1_34w
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 February 2011 05:16 (fourteen years ago)
if this guy is trolling it would fill me with wonderment and joy.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 February 2011 05:17 (fourteen years ago)
GOOD JOB, MATT ARMSTRONG
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 05:17 (fourteen years ago)
oh wait, I know who this guy is doing an impression of
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 February 2011 05:23 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.markck.com/pages/gremlins/brain_sit.jpg
man that youtube, it feels like it's a joke dubbing or something
― iatee, Thursday, 24 February 2011 05:25 (fourteen years ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:17 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark
i'd put money on it.
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 24 February 2011 05:28 (fourteen years ago)
what a treat to start my morning with
thankig u all
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:57 (fourteen years ago)
professor higgins wuz here
― Mordy, Thursday, 24 February 2011 13:04 (fourteen years ago)
http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/mclaughlin.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 24 February 2011 13:21 (fourteen years ago)
interesting article on precedent for deeming laws unconstitutional, via michael tomasky
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Thursday, 24 February 2011 13:40 (fourteen years ago)
this is pretty awesome of bam as far as i can tell
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 14:26 (fourteen years ago)
And the reaction so far is minimal. Minimal! Sure some boilerplate and a lot of whining bloggers on the right that would treat Obama's announcement of National Kitten Day as a sign of Leninist influence via feline DNA but it's a bit like the DADT repeal, I get an overwhelming sense of "Well that took long enough, can we focus on other things now?"
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 February 2011 14:38 (fourteen years ago)
weirdly the thing that characterised boehner & huckabee's responses is the limp complaint of, we should be concentrating on the economy, etc, which seems to indight the appetite of the whitehouse rather than the actual policy
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Thursday, 24 February 2011 14:46 (fourteen years ago)
HAHA, that Brown dude...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MqTxQ-TT83A/SZM1VQzaIxI/AAAAAAAAADE/HOrIfLqgm4o/s400/thurston+howell.jpg
And I said to Lovie, egads, the campus is positively overrun with those LIBerals...
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 24 February 2011 15:44 (fourteen years ago)
today's friedman column edited down to just the mixed metaphors:
A wake-up call’s mother is unfolding. At the other end is a bell, which is telling us we have built a house at the foot of a volcano. The volcano is spewing lava, which says move your house. The road will be long and rocky, but it will trigger a shift before it kicks. We can capture some of it. IF the Middle East was a collection of gas stations, Saudi Arabia would be a station. Iran, Kuwait , Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates would all be stations. Guys, here’s the deal. Don’t hassle the Jews. You are insulated from history. History is back. Fasten your seat belts. Don’t expect a joy ride because the lid is blowing off. The west turned a blind eye, but the report was prophetic, with key evidence. Societies are frozen in time. No one should have any illusions. Root for the return to history, but not in the middle.
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:42 (fourteen years ago)
Worst Mad Libs entry ever.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:42 (fourteen years ago)
^^^ sneaking suspicion tracer hand wrote this xp
loling so hard
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:43 (fourteen years ago)
Moral: Never build a gas station at the foot of a volcano. Sound advice, my son!
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
Friedman's new graphic is pretty hilar!http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/16/opinion/Friedman_New/Friedman_New-articleInline.jpg
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)
^thoughtfully contemplating the flat world.
I believe the Thurston Howell style of speech is called "Larchmont lockjaw"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:54 (fourteen years ago)
HOOS that is BRILLIANT!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:56 (fourteen years ago)
Guys, here’s the deal. Don’t hassle the Jews. You are insulated from history. History is back. Fasten your seat belts. Don’t expect a joy ride because the lid is blowing off.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:57 (fourteen years ago)
The road will be long and rocky, but it will trigger a shift before it kicks. We can capture some of it.
IF the Middle East was a collection of gas stations, Saudi Arabia would be a station. Iran, Kuwait , Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates would all be stations.
― DJP, Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
Short punchy sentences are incisive. Active verbs like "trigger" and "capture" add pizzazz. Strong adjectives like "rocky" deliver the goods. Always carve up your copy into bite-sized pieces when you seek this incisive effect. People will see you are one smart cookie.
― Aimless, Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:03 (fourteen years ago)
Don't let the road kick you in the middle of history on your way to move your house.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:04 (fourteen years ago)
I'm sorry, I'm laughing so hard I can't stop thinking of new combinations. I could do these all day.
friedman has got to be shitting his pants over all these new bloviating opportunities being made available to him due to current events. I saw his jowly face on cnn just last night..
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:13 (fourteen years ago)
A rolling stone can give you a helluva bruise.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:20 (fourteen years ago)
That Rumsfeld interview on the Daily Show is harsh. He's constantly feigning ignorance when it's convenient to the conversation, indulging in needless culture war with the "Oh my goodness" remark, etc. Donald still lives in that facts-free alternate universe. He really should have his own FOX news show.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:27 (fourteen years ago)
If Rumsfeld were a collection of seat belts, he would be in a fleet of Pintos, on the road to history.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:46 (fourteen years ago)
beneath a volcano
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:47 (fourteen years ago)
heavens to seat belts!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:49 (fourteen years ago)
― Z S, Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:58 (fourteen years ago)
Its so funny that GOP politicians are pretty much coming out and saying they don't like public servants. Really drives home the fact that they are all bought and paid for by private entities anyway. Nice of them to just straight admit it.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 24 February 2011 20:46 (fourteen years ago)
25 years!!
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/24/virginia.terror.sentence/index.html?hpt=T2
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:06 (fourteen years ago)
U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady told Chesser he had made a big leap from being a high school athlete to a traitor.
...OR DID HE?
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
Wait, wait, wait, a judge told a defendant who was not accused of, charged with or convicted of treason that he was a traitor? Then sentenced him to 25 years in prison?
Oh, do I wish I was a lawyer, and specifically I wish I was this kid's lawyer.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Adam_Chesser
His yearbook profile stated “As the only Caucasian member of the break-dancing club, senior Zac Chesser was not intimidated by being the only non-Asian."
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
Vaguely more seriously:
He admitted that he intended to continue from there to Somalia, the home of Al-Shabaab. An affidavit filed in federal court alleges that he intended to join Al-Shabab as a “foreign fighter."
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:22 (fourteen years ago)
Did I miss a mention of this below item upthread?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223
But what will happen to this general:
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.
The Runaway General: The Rolling Stone Profile of Stanley McChrystal That Changed History
The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah there's already all sort of Congressional/Petraeus 'we're investigating' noises.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:58 (fourteen years ago)
It will get ignored this weekend on the Sunday talk shows along with labor's point of view re Wisconsin and unions in other states
labor officials are beginning to fear that none of them will be invited on this weekend to give voice to the labor point of view. This, even as tough-talking anti-union governor Chris Christie is set to do a major appearance on CBS on Sunday.
One AFL-CIO official tells me that reps for the AFL-CIO and other unions reached out to all the big three network shows -- ABC's This Week, NBC's Meet the Press, and CBS' Face the Nation -- to ask if they would invite on any labor officials. Thus far the answer has been cool to indifferent, the official says.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/no_labor_officials_on_sunday_s.html
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 February 2011 23:26 (fourteen years ago)
gay mawwiage legal in mawwyland
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 February 2011 02:05 (fourteen years ago)
despite a democratic state senator insisting that she 'can not imagine a world without CHILDREN, and that is what we are doing here because two people of the same sex can not produce CHILDREN'
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 February 2011 02:06 (fourteen years ago)
still has to pass the MD house, right? but yes, soon prob!
― Z S, Friday, 25 February 2011 04:16 (fourteen years ago)
http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_12/jccentcom_0.jpg
Indiana Official: "Use Live Ammunition" Against Wisconsin Protesters
Update: The Indiana attorney general's office has confirmed to Mother Jones that Jeff Cox was terminated Wednesday. The full statement and screen captures of the now-defunct blog are posted here.
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn't end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."
From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."
Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.
http://newstrust.net/stories/5296091/toolbar?ref=rss
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 25 February 2011 16:21 (fourteen years ago)
The anti-union, anti-public servant bug that's going around is for me the most depressing political meme of the past few years.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 25 February 2011 16:32 (fourteen years ago)
^this. My mom used to work for the State Health Dept. She's staunch Republican Christian conservative, but she was cheering on the protesters in WI just as heartily as anyone else.
I think Republicans have done an outstanding job of discrediting conservatism since the election. This alone might be enough to keep Obama in office for another 4 years (yeah I know I know, 2 years away, wgaf, etc.), and I gotta admit, I'm somewhat pleased to see the Dems use this huge pile of horse-shit to demolish DOMA. Way to be on the ball for once...
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 25 February 2011 17:23 (fourteen years ago)
This alone = Walker trying to strip away bargaining rights (& presumably, benefits) for public servants
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 25 February 2011 17:24 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i hope the GOP doesn't get away with painting public servants as welfare queens. i guess we'll see
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:02 (fourteen years ago)
I mean, coming out and saying you hate public servants: YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT!!!
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:07 (fourteen years ago)
self-loathing is more of a Democrat thing
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:09 (fourteen years ago)
law enforcement sleepover!
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/25/wisconsin-professional-police-association-asks-walker-to-keep-capitol-open/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:10 (fourteen years ago)
I always want to tell federal government workers I know who are devout Republicans, why don't you go to the private sector and be true to your party's mantra. But I don't, and they never comment on the situation (apparently it's that other federal government employee who's the problem, not them).
― curmudgeon, Friday, 25 February 2011 18:13 (fourteen years ago)
And the common, folksy reasoning for hating these public servants is that they are doing better than other people in a shitty economy. How come American Exceptionalism is conveniently brushed aside in this case?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:14 (fourteen years ago)
well looks like the WI thing passed. good job everyone.
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:23 (fourteen years ago)
In an ugly, fact-deficient Charles Krauthmmer editorial I read, he turns the public servant union members into elitist communists who think they deserve better than hard-working private sector Americans. He also blames unions for all economic problems without any factual support of course.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 25 February 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)
I think it passed the house -- not the senate, which is still AWOL. That's my understanding, anyway xp
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)
I was pretty confused by that
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
correct
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
one rule for officers, another for enlisted men
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 25 February 2011 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
Louie CK is killing me here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK8Y2nO_8TM
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 25 February 2011 19:01 (fourteen years ago)
Georgia lawmaker proposes classifying miscarriages as prenatal murder
― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Friday, 25 February 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
...making abortion and miscarriage -- or "prenatal murder" in the language of the bill -- potentially punishable by death
I have long argued that this is the logical extension of redefining fetuses as persons. Except I always used the miscarriage as murder illustration as a reductio ad absurdem. Every absurdity eventually arises I suppose.
― Aimless, Friday, 25 February 2011 19:20 (fourteen years ago)
― DJP, Friday, 25 February 2011 19:23 (fourteen years ago)
btw, the Georgia lawmaker is... a man.
― Aimless, Friday, 25 February 2011 19:24 (fourteen years ago)
SURPRISE!
― anna sui generis (suzy), Friday, 25 February 2011 19:34 (fourteen years ago)
In a new Kaiser Health poll, just 52% of Americans knew that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Obama is still in place. Meanwhile, one fifth -- 22% -- of all Americans believe that the law has been overturned, while another 26% aren't sure what's up with the law.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 25 February 2011 19:52 (fourteen years ago)
yo! what's up with the law?
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Friday, 25 February 2011 19:53 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.churchbeatradio.com/themes/whiztheme/gfx/1268390010_WhatUpWithThat.jpg
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 25 February 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
did somebody already do this one
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/nyregion/25roger-ailes.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
"After the publishing powerhouse Judith Regan was fired by HarperCollins in 2006, she claimed that a senior executive at its parent company, News Corporation, had encouraged her to lie two years earlier to federal investigators who were vetting Bernard B. Kerik for the job of homeland security secretary."
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Friday, 25 February 2011 20:10 (fourteen years ago)
not on this thread, but yeah on another one -- Is Fox News a Tool of Satan?
― old man yells at poop first thing in the morning (pixel farmer), Friday, 25 February 2011 20:25 (fourteen years ago)
the cops refusing to carry out walker's orders is really a pretty amazing mubarak parallel
― symsymsym, Friday, 25 February 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)
In France this sort of non-cooperation by the police would be just as effective, but a lot less amazing, because the French know the power of organization and solidarity among workers. Too bad the USAers have forgotten this.
― Aimless, Friday, 25 February 2011 20:56 (fourteen years ago)
french people also really like refusing to do shit tho
― iatee, Friday, 25 February 2011 21:02 (fourteen years ago)
kids would be skipping school to support the workers too! lots of them!
also a few cars would have been torched by now
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 25 February 2011 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
just like in wisconsin!
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Friday, 25 February 2011 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
You need to win a major sporting event to make that happen though.
― joygoat, Friday, 25 February 2011 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
jeremy barnard?http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/jeremy_bernard_a_historic_choi.html
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 25 February 2011 22:27 (fourteen years ago)
i was bored at work this week and read some political feeds that i otherwise would not have had time to.
shit like this is so fucking depressing. how do people follow this all the time without cracking?
― mookieproof, Saturday, 26 February 2011 03:37 (fourteen years ago)
It's incredible that the wingnuts are sayings its 'time to start talking about impeachment' because the President can't just 'ignore the laws he doesn't like' (DOMA).
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
that's just newt, right? or has it spread?
― Z S, Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
In terms of public figures I haven't heard it anywhere else, but it's starting to pop up on far right blogs.
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:33 (fourteen years ago)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102240043
hoos these are people, in their wisconsin wingnut variety, outraged that the president 'doesn't have a birth certificate,' but are totally cool voting for a governor who got expelled from marquette university for cheating. god i hope the tide changes soon. i can't take much more of this stupid wave
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:34 (fourteen years ago)
Greenwald's thoughtful response. While agreeing with the DOJ's decision of course, he's wary about the (historically supported) trend of chief executive's ignoring the parts of laws they don't find constitutional.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:35 (fourteen years ago)
i thought it was just Newt. Frum's thoughts:http://www.frumforum.com/newts-obama-impeachment-stunt
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:37 (fourteen years ago)
Good response from the Volokh Conspiracy.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:40 (fourteen years ago)
alfred is that the right greenwald link? it doesn't mention doma
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:43 (fourteen years ago)
no he meant this one: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/24/bliss/index.html
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:44 (fourteen years ago)
his segment with o'donnell is worth watching too
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:51 (fourteen years ago)
one thing i'm not clear on - somin says
Thus, if the president genuinely believes that DOMA or any other federal statute is unconstitutional, he has at least a prima facie duty not to defend it in court, and possibly a duty not to take actions to enforce it either, as part of his exercise of prosecutorial discretion (a traditional executive power).
while greenwald seems to imply that he must continue to enforce the law. the obama DOJ did something similar wrt medical marijuana enforcement, no?
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:59 (fourteen years ago)
I know very little about unions. I'll say that from the start. I recognize that Walker's actions are purely politically motivated (just like the House slashing energy and science) and that this isn't about fiscal conservatism. That said, I don't understand unions and why they should have the power they do (in many cases). I read a New Yorker article back in 2009, which compared automakers in Detroit with those in Smyrna, Tennessee. It wasn't anti-union, but I remember a passage in there that described the millions of dollars that GM had to pay to insure unionized workers who weren't even working, as well as their entire families. It just doesn't seem sustainable at all.
Can someone give me a good explanation? I am admittedly ignorant about this.
― Benjamin-, Saturday, 26 February 2011 17:24 (fourteen years ago)
GM reported a $4.7 billion profit for 2010 on Thursday. What's at issue here isn't the sustainability of the company, it's the sustainability of plutocratic decadence.
― Euler, Saturday, 26 February 2011 17:40 (fourteen years ago)
I don't know much about unions, but those workers who "weren't even working" were part of a system that the companies set up, where they would use periods of layoffs and unemployment to keep people "on retainer" in a way, so they could hire them when business was good, and lay them off once the orders for cars were filled. To make sure their employees wouldn't get desperate and move or take another job, GM would make sure they all got unemployment insurance. So the government paid people to be idle, and the companies would sit tight until they needed workers, and their workers would be right there in town doing nothing but drinking and sitting home waiting for work to pick up. It's not a particularly GOOD system, but that's how it was created/worked out.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Saturday, 26 February 2011 17:53 (fourteen years ago)
It's even a tiny bit as if the poor auto manufacturers were being taken advantage of by greedy, lazy working people or some shit.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Saturday, 26 February 2011 17:57 (fourteen years ago)
ISN'T EVEN A TINY BIT, that was supposed to say.
I don't understand unions and why they should have the power they do (...) Can someone give me a good explanation?
Contract law.
You can damn well bet that when two businesses enter a contract they want everything in writing, negotiate the hardest bargain they can get, and try to maximize their profits in every way they can, and if the other party to the agreement fails to live up to the contract, they will sue for every penny they can get. And they wouldn't have it any other way.
GM is a mammoth megacorporation and they use that fact to push around their suppliers all the time, because the suppliers have little leverage to dictate terms and GM has a lot of leverage. As a result, GM usually gets its way and sucks up the lion's share of the profit. They are the lion.
Unions and companies enter into contracts, too. In this case, the supplier is supplying GM with labor, not parts. Both parties used all their leverage to get the most favorable terms possible. When GM negotiated that union contract they vetted the details, ran the numbers, computed their liabilities and profits, liked what they saw and signed it.
All the hand-wringing about how union contracts are unfair burdens on companies is just so much political bullshit. If these contracts were with Exxon or IBM, it would be just as much of a burden, but no one would think "poor little GM, getting pushed around by big bad Exxon". No, they'd laugh at GM for boo-hooing about it.
― Aimless, Saturday, 26 February 2011 18:20 (fourteen years ago)
OTFM
― Z S, Saturday, 26 February 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
Seconded. Great post. Thanks.
― Benjamin-, Saturday, 26 February 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
booming post!
― Doctor Casino, Saturday, 26 February 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
Once unions are killed off I can't wait for the return of the 6-day work week.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 26 February 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
I’m generally pro-union but that doesn’t mean that union wins can’t lead to unforeseen costs and that unforeseen costs can shut down a business. if we're pretending this is all just a big free-market game and that's that, then yeah, the union was a better contract negotiator, wtg, too bad GM doesn't exist anymore because it was poorly run.
when a public union ‘wins’ with contract negotiations but much of that contract is actually with future taxpayers who can’t even vote right now, then yeah there’s definitely a complexity to that situation that doesn’t exist in a GM/IBM deal.
― iatee, Saturday, 26 February 2011 20:01 (fourteen years ago)
I think it helps to look at it all in context. Look at what we have been spending trillions of dollars on in the public sphere - straight into the pockets of the uber-rich, warmongers, etc.
These people aren't involved in torture. They aren't spying on your emails. They aren't blowing up dirt-poor villagers. They aren't ruining the global economy. They aren't spilling toxic sludge in the ocean. They're just working. Even if they are all lazy cushy-job stereotypes, they are still a million miles better than most of the people we've been giving our tax dollars to.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 26 February 2011 20:17 (fourteen years ago)
yeah but we're generally talking about state and local level unions. I'm sure a lot of wisconsin state tax dollars are wasted, but they're not going to afghanistan.
― iatee, Saturday, 26 February 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
Right wingers are generally opposed to all unions (public or private) so imo what's happening in Wisc. is unacceptable as it further erodes their political power as unions tend to support each other (there are exceptions of course). Individually, union members can be anti-union as I've worked with such people. I don't understand it but w/e people are people. In any case, I have family members who currently work and have worked in unions and I also have a good friend who used to work in one. I talked with them about their experiences when the Wisconsin events began happening and it reinforced my beliefs that overall, unions are a good thing despite some drawbacks. I don't think anybody here is opposed to unions but I'll share some thoughts.
Since joining a union can mean a certain level of job security, decent benefits and pay, people will stick around. Experienced workers are more productive, there isn't a constant turnover so less training is required. This is a win-win situation for the company and the unions. Also, GM just handed out something like 4k to each worker in profit sharing further encouraging employees to stay. This is the way trickle down should work, but rarely does. I've worked in places (and do right now) where turnover is incredible and the final product suffers immensely. It puts a huge burden on mid-level management that really isn't necessary.
My bro-in-law worked on the line for GM and it allowed my sister to stay at home and raise the kids. He's got health issues right now and his union medical care has been excellent which leads to my second point- with people having good health insurance, decent doctors and hospitals can move in a flourish. This an added benefit to the entire community, even to people who rely on emergency room for health.
There are of course other economic spillover effects in housing, schools, businesses, etc when people make a decent wage.
Anecdotally, my friend who used to work for a local unionised grocery store chain (Heinens for any Clevelanders reading) said working for a union shop allowed him to move out of his parents house, save money and after a while go on to do what he wanted to do without having to go to college.
Also, my niece works in the Corvette plant in Kentucky so I'm familar with her being constantly laid off and going on unemployement and then returning when sales pick up. It was mentioned up thread that this retains a pool of experienced workers that can get up to full production in no time. Still, it's not easy on a personal level as several times she thought this was the end of the line and she wasn't going to be called back.
When time get tough any problems with unions can be negotiated, which apparently the Wisc unions were willing to do. It's sad to see that the Governor is not even willing to do that.
Like I said, I get the feeling that no one here is opposed to unions so what I'm writing is just some reinforcement.
I dunno, I started happy hour a little early today so I'm just rambling on.
― brownie, Saturday, 26 February 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)
so many typos, time to get back drinking
― brownie, Saturday, 26 February 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
that doesn’t mean that union wins can’t lead to unforeseen costs and that unforeseen costs can shut down a business.
Again, if either a business or a union determines that renegotiating a contract is in their best interest, rather than enforcing it, then they are going to seek their best interest. That is precisely why auto unions agreed to a series of givebacks that weakened earlier contracts.
They knew that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy would void the union contract but leave the auto companies intact, so a controlled, targeted set of givebacks was in the best interest of their members. Chapter 11 has become an enormously powerful union-busting tool since it was instituted.
In the case of the Wisconsin public employee unions, they, too, have offered monetary givebacks that would essentially resolve the budget problems that Walker is using as the justification for his union-busting. Walker has rejected those offers and purposely sought a test of political power with the unions instead. He is discovering what that means.
He may yet prevail, but it is likely he has stirred a huge hornet's nest that could lead to unforeseen costs to the Republican party, both in Wisconsin and nationally. Huge costs, I would hope.
― Aimless, Saturday, 26 February 2011 22:46 (fourteen years ago)
I am sure Walker will be recalled.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Saturday, 26 February 2011 22:51 (fourteen years ago)
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Saturday, 26 February 2011 22:58 (fourteen years ago)
yet this did not preclude the need for an enormous federal bailout. wisconsin public employee unions offered the givebacks as a response to walker's actions not due to their enlightened self-interest.
― iatee, Saturday, 26 February 2011 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
my right-wing friends have been bitching about public-sector workers since LONG before Walker and his ilk got it into their heads to bust public-sector unions. and yes, i've encountered public-sector workers who have made me want to ring their necks (try dealing with certain agencies in the State of New Jersey, or certain court personnel). i've also encountered private-sector workers who've made me want to ring their necks. Teabaggers never really have an answer as to why these private-sector workers aren't so much more demonstrably better than their public-sector counterparts.
― I saw the future, but Chris Christie ate it. (Eisbaer), Sunday, 27 February 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
this did not preclude the need for an enormous federal bailout
iirc, Wisconsin's public employees did not cause the housing bubble, nor did they burst it, nor did they cause Lehman Brothers to fail, nor did they sell 60 trillions of dollars of worthless paper like AIG did. I fail to see any connection at all.
wisconsin public employee unions offered the givebacks as a response to walker's actions not due to their enlightened self-interest
These are not mutually exclusive. Nor is this a case where you may confidentally say post hoc ergo propter hoc without something to back it up aside from inference.
― Aimless, Sunday, 27 February 2011 01:50 (fourteen years ago)
the first sentence was in reference to auto workers.
― iatee, Sunday, 27 February 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
― iatee, Saturday, February 26, 2011 5:41 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
yes and no. in the negotiated contracts that the state legislature rejected in december (long story) just before walker took office, public-employee unions already agreed to a number of givebacks--increased health-care premiums, no wage increases, etc. in fact most public employees have seen their real compensation decline over the past few years (under democratic state leadership). including myself.
walker is nuts. he has already won, in framing the story around greedy public employees who are draining the state. but he really wants to make wisconsin a red state forever--he wants to be a hero to his party. so he's overreaching, and is now in a position where he can't really step back off the ledge, since he has little to lose. there's a good chance a recall will happen in a year, yes, and whatever happens this dude is not going to be a two-termer.
two things might happen now with the budget repair bill:
1) democratic senators persuaded to come back when walker unveils not only his actual 2011-12 budget proposal but a host of "non-fiscal" measures that will be ratified by the senate w/o democratic input. this is already happening. repubs have already made it difficult for students and low-income folks to vote by passing voter ID bill.
2) several more GOP state senators will revolt, say they can't pass the bill b/c of voice of their constituents and ethics concerns. the fact that walker is starting look like a blundering fool in the MSM will give them an "out" to say that this isn't the way wisconsin does business, or something like that. we're already seeing this happen, but it's sort of under the radar.
― by another name (amateurist), Sunday, 27 February 2011 02:00 (fourteen years ago)
xp (shrug) GM's problems were of such a magnitude that even if the workers had worked for minimum wage, that alone could not have put the company in the black. When people stop buying cars, car companies lose money. Blaming them for the bailout would be foolish. They were neither the root cause of the problem nor the key to any potential solution. Again, I fail to see much connection.
― Aimless, Sunday, 27 February 2011 02:02 (fourteen years ago)
yeah I know, was in reference to aimless' "they, too, have offered monetary givebacks that would essentially resolve the budget problems that Walker is using as the justification for his union-busting."
pretty sure if workers had worked for minimum wage + GM had zero legacy costs that were very much related to unions, they company could be in the black.
again, I'm not 'anti-union', they're complicated economic beings that are important to the country for lots of reasons and at the same time in many cases can have pretty large negative effects when the political/economic interests of one particular union do not coincide with the best interests of society.
just wanted to highlight that when a public union gets an advantageous contract in successful contract negotiation, it's not winning against IBM stockholders but against abstract representatives for future taxpayers, representatives who have no problem making politically popular contracts if they won't be in office when it's time to pay the bills. and states can't file for chapter 11. (yet...)
that said, walker's an idiot, christie is an idiot, again, I'm not anti-union, but a union getting an unrealistically fantastic contract w/ a state is more than just a testament to their guile and great business savvy.
― iatee, Sunday, 27 February 2011 02:26 (fourteen years ago)
Teabaggers never really have an answer as to why these private-sector workers aren't so much more demonstrably better than their public-sector counterparts.
I kind of feel like they'd think that the peons in service-type jobs are expected to be surly and useless, but at least in the private sector they only get paid minimum wage with no benefits like the market intended. If only they could get rid of the damn minimum wage then all would be perfect.
― joygoat, Sunday, 27 February 2011 02:45 (fourteen years ago)
gtfo iatee
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, 27 February 2011 05:42 (fourteen years ago)
iatee, so should unions go out of their way to get bad contracts with the state, so as to avoid being an expense to future taxpayers? (And are we assuming here that the union members are themselves not future taxpayers?)
― Doctor Casino, Sunday, 27 February 2011 06:17 (fourteen years ago)
Again, it's like this is LEGAL, this is BUSINESS, this is CAPITALISM. These are all reasons the GOP have used to justify horrid practices over the past several years and are suddenly moot because the word Union is involved.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 27 February 2011 06:51 (fourteen years ago)
'capitalism' can mean whatever you want it to mean and those republicans would tell you that unionism is a distortion in real capitalism. regardless, that argument makes a lot more sense in reference to private sector unions. public union contracts: legal? yes. business? well, sorta. again, this isn't a GM/IBM deal, and people on the political side of the deal have a distorted set of incentives and are operating a machine that is 'too big to fail'.
dc: no, unions should attempt to get the best deal possible, that's their raison d'etre, just as a company should attempt to maximize shareholder value. in both cases that overarching philosophy is gonna lead to social gain. but that doesn't suggest that every union or business is going to have a positive effect. I probably read most on transit stuff and it's impossible to believe that the new york transit union (twu) is a positive force for nyc transportation.
― iatee, Sunday, 27 February 2011 07:43 (fourteen years ago)
iatee, you have unions to thank for the leisure time you have to write these convoluted, GOP-lite posts.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Sunday, 27 February 2011 09:13 (fourteen years ago)
iatee i get what you're saying but if management can bring an honest account of the next few years - or longer - and show how union demands will fuck the balance sheet, that is taken very seriously by union leadership! it's not like they just blindly ask for as much as they can. this is a weird view of unions, that they have no regard for the future financial success of their employers. they have a HUGE regard for that, and that's built into negotiations.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 27 February 2011 09:52 (fourteen years ago)
it's amazing that we still find it so difficult, even in 2011, to focus the blame for poor financial performance on the executives in charge of actually formulating the strategic direction of their businesseses (or on the people in charge of departmental budgets). no, it must have been the clerical worker's fault.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 27 February 2011 09:57 (fourteen years ago)
tracer hit it on the head. if there really were "shared sacrifice," then asking state workers' unions for givebacks (though NOT abrogating their collective bargaining rights) would be more justifiable. however, we live in a country where AIG got their bonuses w/ the federal government's blessing, the investment banks are LOL profitable again (at the taxpayer's expense), detestable human dung like Henry Paulson and Dick Fuld are walking free (instead of sharing a jail cell with Bernie Madoff), the ultrarich got their Bushco tax cuts extended ("officially" for two years, unofficially LOL tax hikes during a Presidential election year), and both parties are fulla people whose asses are firmly attached to ultrawealthy ass.
― I saw the future, but Chris Christie ate it. (Eisbaer), Sunday, 27 February 2011 13:02 (fourteen years ago)
whose LIPS are firmly attached to ultrawealthy ass, i meant to say.
― I saw the future, but Chris Christie ate it. (Eisbaer), Sunday, 27 February 2011 13:03 (fourteen years ago)
suzy: hey look a C-level british celebrity, he's over there!! run girl run!!!
tracer: we're mostly talking public unions though, a state's balance sheet / 'financial success' is a much more vague concept than that of a private sector business - states can always raise taxes and can't go bankrupt.
and yes, 'shared sacrifice' is at the bottom of this and I'd be perfectly fine w/ setting the highest highest tax bracket at 80% at this point in history, so oops, there goes my newly discovered GOP cred.
― iatee, Sunday, 27 February 2011 15:11 (fourteen years ago)
anyway dunno how I got sucked into this conversation, I'm done
― iatee, Sunday, 27 February 2011 15:13 (fourteen years ago)
You got there by simply sucking and you continue to insult me at your peril. Now don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Sunday, 27 February 2011 15:21 (fourteen years ago)
Also, I am probably old enough not to suffer being called girl by a junior male.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Sunday, 27 February 2011 15:22 (fourteen years ago)
iatee you are a weaselly douche, well done for cribbing stale zings from dom and henry and the rest of the london zing we hate gurls collective
― I'd rather climb into the saddle of my Ford Mustang and sink spurs (stevie), Sunday, 27 February 2011 15:29 (fourteen years ago)
Watching McCain on Meet the Press - David Gregory brought up the rolling stone article about US Army ordering psy-ops actions aimed against at US Senators visiting Afghanistan. And of course McCain laughed it off, then went into a zombie-like defense of Lt. Gen. Caldwell - he's a great man, I have the utmost respect for him, bla bla.
Suddenly I had this fleeting thought that US foreign policy debacles make way more sense if you believe everyone has been psy-op'd as soon as they're sworn in.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2dsqqnl.jpg
― Z S, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:00 (fourteen years ago)
man, david gregory is a DICK with the way he is framing this talk about the union battle in Wisconsin.
- gregory aking a question to haley barbour after cutting off Trumka (AFL-CIO): do you think this is really about union rights, as Mr. Trumka suggests, or do you think that it's really about the larger issue of the budget, reducing the deficit, getting it under control, bla bla bla?
- gregory asking a question to emmanuel cleaver (D-MO): have you seen some of these signs the protesters have used? comparing to mubarak to walker? comparing walker to hitler? don't you agree that the rhetoric in these protests has gotten out of control and needs to be toned down?!
― Z S, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:04 (fourteen years ago)
wow, Gregory doubling down on Trumka, asking him to condemn the protesters ugly rhetoric on the show. he's really intent on delegitimizing the protesters without actually talking about what the issues are.
― Z S, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
What a creep - am so glad my weekends are not Fluffy Gregory-blighted - can't wait to read the digested snark version on Bobblespeak Variations.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:12 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe Trumka could ask the table if they all believe Obama was born in the US…you know, just for a bit of balance…
― carson dial, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:15 (fourteen years ago)
A new litmus test for right-wing craziness seemed to have been posited on the Sunday morning shows today: both Huckabee and Chris Christie were asked where they stand on Michelle Obama's healthy-eating initiative. (Unless it's a question that will only be asked of portly Republicans.) They both supported what she's doing, thereby earning a gold star for sanity. Actually, I liked Christie; if he ever mounts a serious run at the presidency, I'm sure I'll hear about all the many ways he's evil.
― clemenza, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
Would really like to know what "psy-ops" entails.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
healthy-eating is one of huckabee's pet issues tho, and christie would be providing the campaign ad of a lifetime if he were recorded on camera expressing his true thoughts on vegetables
― iatee, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:24 (fourteen years ago)
Letting McCain pretend he's Duke and Osama is COBRA Commander.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:24 (fourteen years ago)
You've got to get yourself a job as political consultant!
(Cue ominous attack-ad voice) "Governor Christie says he's in favor of healthy eating, but can a man who once said mean things about rutabagas really be trusted with your children's lives?..."
― clemenza, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
i think he just meant he's really fat
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:45 (fourteen years ago)
I got that.
― clemenza, Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:58 (fourteen years ago)
100,000 protesters turn up in madison, biggest march there since vietnam . . . and the media ignores it
http://www.politicususa.com/en/cnn-fox-msnbc-ignore-wi
but boy if a couple tea partiers get together on april 15th, that's news! usa!
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 27 February 2011 17:46 (fourteen years ago)
i heard that one of the signs there compared scott walker to hitler - when is someone going to stand up and condemn the rhetoric espoused by all 100,000 rioters, i mean violent protesters, i mean protesters, in wisconsin??
― Z S, Sunday, 27 February 2011 17:53 (fourteen years ago)
i hope every politician on the sunday talk shows* stands united in denouncing these peasants. power to the rich people!
*http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/27/sunday-guests-feb-27/ ^"Three Sunday shows — Fox, CBS, and NBC — locked out Democratic voices as featured guests"nothing to see here, folks
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 27 February 2011 18:04 (fourteen years ago)
One Union rep (as part of a 5 person panel) on NBC and no union reps on any of the other Sunday shows. Amazing
― curmudgeon, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:38 (fourteen years ago)
hey guys I don't normally read this thread but I got sucked into a 'the us is going broke because of all the money we're spending on welfare!!!' argument with my mom
any links to help refute this stupid argument (yes I know it's probably futile) would be appreciated
tia
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 28 February 2011 02:40 (fourteen years ago)
oh shit
good luck dude
― mookieproof, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:41 (fourteen years ago)
why the rich are getting richer
― mookieproof, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:45 (fourteen years ago)
income inequality in america
just keep shouting "TWO WARS AND TAX CUTS FOR EVERYONE!! THAT'S WHY WERE BROKE!"You don't have to actually shout at your mother, good luck tho if she actually thinks welfare or medicaid or something is the reason we are having tough economic times...
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 28 February 2011 02:46 (fourteen years ago)
dag there are much better things out there but i haven't got them bookmarked
also viceroy otmfm
― mookieproof, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)
here's one for climate change tho!
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
― mookieproof, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:49 (fourteen years ago)
lol she was just bitching to me yesterday about teachers unions in new jersey and how it was such an outrage that some teachers could retire at 50
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 28 February 2011 02:50 (fourteen years ago)
ftr does she think welfare includes ss/medicaid/care or does she mean "welfare" in the "things she thinks all poor black people get" sense?
― iatee, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)
the second sense
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 28 February 2011 02:56 (fourteen years ago)
her strawman is "the poor unemployed black woman who gets paid by the government to have 9 kids"
I'm not even kidding
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 28 February 2011 02:57 (fourteen years ago)
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, February 28, 2011 2:56 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
well then you should point out how welfare is dwarfed by those programs.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 28 February 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)
yeah that makes things pretty straightforward cause "welfare" welfare makes up a pretty relatively small portion of the federal budget, just find a budget breakdown
― iatee, Monday, 28 February 2011 03:00 (fourteen years ago)
oops I meant to delete 'pretty'
heres a good visual of obama's proposed 2011 budget
― max, Monday, 28 February 2011 03:01 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
― max, Monday, 28 February 2011 03:03 (fourteen years ago)
tnx everyone
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 28 February 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)
If only there was some really big expensive program that every American could agree was not useful or important... unfortunately there are a bunch of medium sized programs that basically everyone in has a vested interested in for some reason or another, and a couple of very large ones that are politically untouchable from either side of the isle.
If only we were spending 200 billion subsidizing veal ranches or something... too bad politics is complicated and its never one big obvious thing everyone can agree on that's 'the problem'...
Talking politics with parents can be tough... heh, I guess most people try to avoid it but its one of the things I really pay attention to and care about -- my parents kind of raised me that way. My dad is a total neocon and will argue with me about basically everything but we tend to be on the same page with some issues. With my mom its mainly generation-gap kinda stuff cause she is a typical boomer liberal -- it took me a long time to convince her that my generation's marijuana isn't 'THC crack' for example, and I really don't think I can convince her that her fear of 'Islamism' and 'Islamofacism' are pretty unfounded and more than a tad racist but she's in her 60s so the fact that she actually listens to what I have to say is enough for me.
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 28 February 2011 03:52 (fourteen years ago)
"If only there was some really big expensive program that every American could agree was not useful or important. . . ."
i bet if somebody figured out how to shut up the libertarian and conservative think tanks, something like 90% - 95% of americans would agree on tax rates for the obscenely rich going back up to where the were before reagan
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 28 February 2011 04:22 (fourteen years ago)
at reagan would be solid
― mookieproof, Monday, 28 February 2011 04:23 (fourteen years ago)
If only there was some really big expensive program that every American could agree was not useful or important.
Reagan memorials.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 28 February 2011 04:23 (fourteen years ago)
seriously watching the entire media jizz over the reagan centennial was kind of nauseating
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 28 February 2011 04:26 (fourteen years ago)
Exactly. Convincing a huge chunk of people who have experienced stagnant real income over the last decade, compounded by the great recession, that restoring the tax rates for millionaires to historical levels is unacceptable...it's a fucking accomplishment. Amazing.
― Z S, Monday, 28 February 2011 04:33 (fourteen years ago)
If only we were spending 200 billion subsidizing veal ranches or something
I read that the rightwing CATO Institute hates farm subsidies and I've read liberal groups propose restructuring farm aid to only help small farms, but apparently both Republican and Democrat congresspeople from the heartland refuse to accept any substantive changes
― curmudgeon, Monday, 28 February 2011 15:42 (fourteen years ago)
^ this would be the obvious place to start looking for savings IMO but agribusiness has the dollars and rural areas especially in the plains are disproportionately better represented than urban and suburban areas.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Monday, 28 February 2011 15:46 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.virtualfunzone.com/slike/misc/Beautiful_farmer_girls/Beautiful_farmer_girls2.jpg
When you turn your back on farm subsidies, you turn your back on this.
― Euler, Monday, 28 February 2011 15:50 (fourteen years ago)
farm fresh
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 28 February 2011 15:56 (fourteen years ago)
If only there was some really big expensive program that every American could agree was not useful or important...
See, this is where I really have to wonder why no one is proposing, say, cutting 10% (or whatever number works) from everything. But that means EVERY FUCKING THING, including defense, including tax cuts for the rich, everything. I mean, I get why Republicans aren't suggesting it; this is a golden opportunity to keep their constituents wealthy while going after organizations like Planned Parenthood that they hate anyway, but has any Democrat suggested anything like this and I just missed it?
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Monday, 28 February 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
^^^heard that idea referred to once as the "circumcision technique" i.e. you can take 10% off the top of anything
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Monday, 28 February 2011 16:21 (fourteen years ago)
they are making arbitrary cuts - of 10% from specific welfare programmes, etc - in the uk at the moment. i think in practice it would mean squeezing another 10% out of programmes that are already stretched, and taking a drop out of the ocean of programmes or whatever that could just be defunded or radically rethought (like 'ten percent from tax cuts from the rich' would be great, but it's almost insulting that it would be done in the spirit of cutting in equal proportion from the rich and poor, rather than on the basis that they're fucked up). it seems like it takes a step away from acknowledging that programmes will cost money, also, the epiphany of which is a better thing to shoot for; it's like that old stat of, who supports smaller government? everyone does!, but then who wants to choose which programmes to cut? no-one. arbitrary cuts aren't gonna help, realistic budget analysis might.
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Monday, 28 February 2011 16:25 (fourteen years ago)
better yet, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill. Schakowsky's plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class
http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2777:
― curmudgeon, Monday, 28 February 2011 16:41 (fourteen years ago)
I've seen her plan and agree wholeheartedly. I suspect there are a number of Republicans who do not.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Monday, 28 February 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
Of course. The only bipartisan plans are ones where moderate and conservative Dems sign off on conservative proposals.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 28 February 2011 17:18 (fourteen years ago)
guys who's that idiot lady conservative blogger whose name I can't remember right now?
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 28 February 2011 17:54 (fourteen years ago)
Maggie Gallagher? K-Lo?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 28 February 2011 17:54 (fourteen years ago)
Michelle Malkin?
― DJP, Monday, 28 February 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
K LO THANK YOU
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 28 February 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
Schakowsky is my mom's congresswoman and she rocks.
― by another name (amateurist), Monday, 28 February 2011 18:47 (fourteen years ago)
Obama talks about mandate opt out.http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/146443-obama-backs-health-reform-change
This is sort of the same thing Scott Brown and Ron Wyden were talking about last year(?) I'm inclined to think this is a smart move, particularly if this part stands: "The law’s waiver provision comes with a catch, however. A state’s waiver proposal must show that it is capable of providing coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as that offered through new state-run health insurance exchanges, which also open in 2014. The state must also provide coverage to as many residents as the exchanges would have, and the proposal must not increase the federal deficit."
can someone with a more detailed knowledge of the ACA tell me if this is bad idea/ good idea.
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Monday, 28 February 2011 19:54 (fourteen years ago)
imo this is a good idea both politically and practically.
― max, Monday, 28 February 2011 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
It gets better though - OBAMA HUG OF DEATH!
"I know that many of you have asked for flexibility for your states under this law," Obama said during a speech to a governors meeting at the White House. "In fact, I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he's proud of what he accomplished on health care by giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions. He's right."
― carson dial, Monday, 28 February 2011 20:02 (fourteen years ago)
for someone who respects Obama's so-called political gifts more than I do, the Hug of Death destroys whoever receives it, thereby leaving the GOP field open to the loons who will lose in a general election to Obama.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
Newt's in. Bring on the rest of the loons.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, this (and obv Romneycare in general) is going to be a bag of crap around his neck during the primaries. so, outside a couple of no-name moderates (Huntsman, Daniels) that pretty much leaves a field of easy-to-hate demagogues and profoundly unserious feebs.
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)
I heard Mitch Daniels on Morning Edition making prez noises.(xpost)
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:12 (fourteen years ago)
oh i see he was already mentioned. So far he seems like the only credible contender.
Gov. Mitch Daniels on the radio this morning stressed the deficit as the number one challenge facing America today, one that transcends ideology. Then in the next breath, after the obvious follow-up question, he says letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be disastrous. Man, the brazen, disingenuous, duplicitous nature of these guys. I don't know if I'm more impressed or appalled.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 February 2011 20:15 (fourteen years ago)
go ahead, take a nap on those profoundly unserious feebs, and you may get an unpleasant surprise.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:15 (fourteen years ago)
^^^very, very doubtful
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
yeah the prob w/ Daniels is that even though he might not "hate fags", he's still unwilling to concede that tax breaks for the rich hasn't really delivered the way the GOP has promised.
also, i would hope with all the non-economic asshattery going on in the House right now, and the distinct possibility the GOP could pick up more seats in the Senate would scare moderates and swing voters from voting for anyone besides Obama. I mean, is a Huntsman or even a Daniels going to have the will to stand up to a GOP congressional majority?
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:21 (fourteen years ago)
xxposts
It's not defeatism by any stretch, but the news last week that so many Americans think the health care bill has already been repealed makes me concerned folks may not fight because they think they've already lost.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 February 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
(lol any more than Obama had the will to stand up to a GOP minority. :-/)
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Monday, 28 February 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)
Perhaps it depends on what state they live in and how lo-info they are? xpost
― anna sui generis (suzy), Monday, 28 February 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, February 28, 2011 2:29 PM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark
most people don't have the slightest understanding of what's even in the health care bill that might benefit them! that's probably the reason that people won't fight for it.
i generally don't like to play monday morning quarterback on stuff like but sheesh did dems do a bad job of messaging this stuff.
― by another name (amateurist), Monday, 28 February 2011 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
Eric Cantor, fervent defender of states rights.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 04:02 (fourteen years ago)
I didn't know about Gingrich till I read the last few posts. David Brooks had a funny line on him a couple of months ago on one of the roundtables (paraphrase): "Well, Newt's always someone with 300 new ideas, and a hundred of them are good." I'm embarrassed to admit this, but there was a time when I viewed him as credible...at least to the extent that there was an intellect there...or a functional IQ--something. But I hear so much derision about what a flake he is, in addition to all the marital hypocrisy and and the '95 debacle, that I assume his chance of getting the nomination is close to zero.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 04:26 (fourteen years ago)
A poll!
According to a New York Times/CBS News poll released last night, not at all well.
Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.
Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.
Governors in both parties have been making the case that public workers are either overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. But 61 percent of those polled -- including just over half of Republicans -- said they thought the salaries and benefits of most public employees were either "about right" or "too low" for the work they do.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 14:50 (fourteen years ago)
As if Walker and the Republican governors care about stinkin' NY Times polls
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 14:52 (fourteen years ago)
well whaddya know
maybe somebody should tell the media
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
xp yeah but for Walker & the rest of the Tea Party/neocon brain trust, insisting that the protesters are fat off the public teat is costing them control over the 'narrative' and causes widespread damage to their credibility, making it harder for them to poison people against anything Obama wants to do in the future...
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
& my instinct is that if the media's one-sided framing of the debate isn't helping the Pubs, then it's probably making things that much worse for them...
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:08 (fourteen years ago)
i sort of hate to say it but that poll makes me think that unions read as "white" in a way that a lot of other prospective targets of demagogic ire don't
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:08 (fourteen years ago)
i mean the Republicans have been brilliant at eviscerating unions but to really go all the way they'll need to convince everyone that they're filled with Mexicans and black people
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:10 (fourteen years ago)
(lol @ "everyone")
I think the American right will be happy with having done some union-busting, even if it has "political" consequences like costing Walker his job. He's just a shock trooper, and he can be replaced, but the battle will have been won & the war will continue.
― Euler, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:12 (fourteen years ago)
it seems that the fact that the WI unions were willing to come to the table on everything except relinquishing bargaining rights shows that this is 100% political rather than about the budget. that can't play ver well, even with people who are tacitly supportive of weakening unions.
i mean there are tons of GOP/tea party-sympathizing public school teachers, firemen, policemen (around here anyways)... i can only assume they have to be thinking it might be time to pump the brakes a little.
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 15:24 (fourteen years ago)
A Tea Partier, a Union Worker and a CEO were sitting at a table.
The table had a dozen cookies on it.
The CEO grabbed 11 cookies for himself and said to the Tea Partier "Hey! That Union guy is trying to steal half your cookie!"
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 16:16 (fourteen years ago)
There was an article in the Guardian this week about a US uncut movement, mirroring the UK Uncut movement highlighting egregious tax avoiders, has this gained any traction in the US?
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.usuncut.org/
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
Governors in both parties have been making the case that public workers are either overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits
But yeah, banking tycoons who need US tax money or they destroy the economy DESERVE the money they make. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a communist.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
in wisconsin there's a pretty interesting coalition of labor groups here -
http://wisconsinwave.org/
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
For months, Gov. Rick Perry had boasted that his “tough conservative decisions” had kept the budget in surplus while allowing the state to weather the recession unscathed. But after Mr. Perry’s re-election, reality intruded — funny how that happens — and the state is now scrambling to close a huge budget gap. (By the way, given the current efforts to blame public-sector unions for state fiscal problems, it’s worth noting that the mess in Texas was achieved with an overwhelmingly nonunion work force.)So how will that gap be closed? Given the already dire condition of Texas children, you might have expected the state’s leaders to focus the pain elsewhere. In particular, you might have expected high-income Texans, who pay much less in state and local taxes than the national average, to be asked to bear at least some of the burden.But you’d be wrong. Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration; the gap will be closed solely through spending cuts. Medicaid, a program that is crucial to many of the state’s children, will take the biggest hit, with the Legislature proposing a funding cut of no less than 29 percent, including a reduction in the state’s already low payments to providers — raising fears that doctors will start refusing to see Medicaid patients. And education will also face steep cuts, with school administrators talking about as many as 100,000 layoffs.
So how will that gap be closed? Given the already dire condition of Texas children, you might have expected the state’s leaders to focus the pain elsewhere. In particular, you might have expected high-income Texans, who pay much less in state and local taxes than the national average, to be asked to bear at least some of the burden.
But you’d be wrong. Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration; the gap will be closed solely through spending cuts. Medicaid, a program that is crucial to many of the state’s children, will take the biggest hit, with the Legislature proposing a funding cut of no less than 29 percent, including a reduction in the state’s already low payments to providers — raising fears that doctors will start refusing to see Medicaid patients. And education will also face steep cuts, with school administrators talking about as many as 100,000 layoffs.
Jesus Christ.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:24 (fourteen years ago)
Rick Perry should do a Norquist and drown HIMSELF in a bathtub.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:27 (fourteen years ago)
100,000 teachers laid off? I mean I know Texas is a big state but that seems ridiculous. Rick Perry has said a lot of bullshit in his day, mind you. Are these plans coming from state legislators or solely the lips of Gov. Perry?
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:45 (fourteen years ago)
I presume that is support staff as well but it still seems huge.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:53 (fourteen years ago)
god dammit texas
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 18:07 (fourteen years ago)
Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration.
grrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRR
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 18:27 (fourteen years ago)
as a Californian I mostly hope Texas falls into the sea so whatever
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 18:30 (fourteen years ago)
man you can't spell Texas without TAXES
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 19:19 (fourteen years ago)
(sorry)
^ i'm not joking even a little bit about thinking they should prob go ahead and secede. and then we should build a hueg muthafuckin wall. shovel-ready project right their iirc.
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
right there
ladies and gentlemen, George Will
Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/high-speed-to-insolvency.html
― brownie, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:12 (fourteen years ago)
I am basically fine with texas being a giant laboratory that serves to demonstrate the failure of modern conservative thought, I mean it sucks that people have to suffer but...
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)
a laboratory produces a single measurable result that everyone has to respect...
― goole, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
it appears that you did not take your science classes in texas
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
Good ol Boehner:
House Speaker John Boehner puts some fresh spin on the debate over public sector worker rights.
"In some of these states you've got collective bargaining laws that are so weighted in favor of the public employees that there's almost no bargaining," he told CBN. "We've given them a machine gun and put it right at the heads of the local officials and they really have their hands tied."
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:23 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.newsweek.com/content/dam/site/author/george_will.png
Look at this f$#@ing hippy.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:23 (fourteen years ago)
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
O_O
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)
typical abuse of polysyllables.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)
the next para is just as good imo
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
― goole, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)
I'll make sure to call George the next time I'm in bumper to bumper traffic.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)
oh come on mr. 'you'll take my suv out of my cold dead hands'
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:31 (fourteen years ago)
Automobiles: This Machine Fights Communism!
Do you think he actually believes that? Or is that just some royal, Rush-level shit-stirring?
OT, but I got into an argument last night with a conservative friend who is job hunting (and lol sorry but unemployment benefits have run out) and lost out on a job to an equally qualified candidate who also speaks fluent Spanish. Friend was all on this "English should be the official language of the USA" until I reminded him that he is all about the importance of private businesses being able to do as they please (he is very anti-smoking bans, for example) until the decision they make negatively impacts him.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
you've got to be shitting me
I mean, I hate trains, but only because I think riding them for long periods of time is an exercise in neck torture due to where my head hits the headrest; calling them some grand smokescreen for making us all socialists is basically fucking insane
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
basically I think we should make George Will drive in DC rush hour for a year, then ask him what he thinks of trains
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)
he probably already does tbf
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:35 (fourteen years ago)
if George F. Will wants to drive it for me, I'm cool.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:35 (fourteen years ago)
I mean he lives in DC and hates trains, so... idk maybe he has a driver? xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
'out of touch' doesn't even begin...
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:39 (fourteen years ago)
he probably drives at some insane hour to avoid traffic, or works out of a home office
my point is, make him be on the roads at 8:45 and 5:15 and then let him defend the idea that trains are inherently terrible and communist
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
Kasich and Walker, who were elected promising to stop the nonsense, asked Washington for permission to use the high-speed-rail money for more pressing transportation needs than a train running along Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati, or a train parallel to Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Madison.
ugh, i hate how he's implying that it's pointless to route a train parallel to a highway. they're doing that to avoid eminent domain issues, dude. the state already owns the land. plus interstate highways are often the most direct lines from city to city - would he rather that the highspeed rail lines go way out of the way for no reason? plus it's good free advertising for the train, as drivers glance at a dude sitting in the train window chilling with his newspaper and coffee (DJP rubbing his sore neck!)
get a brain! morans
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
plus routing a train parallel to a busy highway TAKES TRAFFIC OFF OF THOSE HIGHWAYS
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)
Will can't be late for Sunday brunches at Cokie's.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)
I just. Can I? I don't. Gah. Words fail me when I encounter shit like this.
― rendezvous then i'm through with HOOS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
..drivers glance at a dude sitting in the train window
I am that dude in train window M-F, and I love it.
Seriously, the few times I've read Will lately, his views are so contrarian and divorced from anything I consider reality, I do feel like he's just the less-loud Limbaugh. He not weighing in on the size of Michelle Obama's ass, but he's still just... ugh.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:49 (fourteen years ago)
Hey, that's nothing. Get a hold of David Limbaugh back in 2008:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71656
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:49 (fourteen years ago)
as gross as this is, he's not doing much more than spelling out what's become the party-line over the last few months. as much as americans love their cars, I'm not sure it's a very wise political move...people generally like futuristic policy ideas! gas prices are already 'high' and are going to be rising steadily!
until dems actually start the war on automobiles (which will never happen, sadly) the gop can't really play this as a 'cars vs. trains' dynamic, most people are not suffering from the absence of roads or cars in their lives and the only threat to their ability to drive will be gas prices, which is an issue independent of high speed rail.
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
Wish Hitchens' 1989 fisking of Will was available online.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
(I mean not *totally* independent, but building more rail doesn't raise gas prices) xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
Will is essentially a sycophant who read Burke in Cliff Notes and whose meal ticket died in June 2004.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
Ray Charles?
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)
This is the toad who prepped Reagan for the 1980 debate, then went on TV as a commentator and announced that Reagan had won it.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 20:59 (fourteen years ago)
my friends who own cars take light rail most of the time (to work and school) and get in their cars when they want to go somewhere light rail doesn't go (to the beach). it's almost as if both methods of transport are useful and worthwhile. wait no sorry lol i went insane for a second. everything is either american or stalinist and we must be strong and pick american.
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
^^^ this is awesome, dlh, thanking you for lol.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:04 (fourteen years ago)
Pretty sure I know where George Will lives, and if I were him I would much prefer the train than traffic down Connecticut through Chevy Chase. He's just a dick.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
i suspect that conservatives also hate public transportation b/c poor people (esp. poor people of color) take trains and buses & Mr. and Mrs. Teabagger would be forced to sit next to "the poors."
― I saw the future, but Chris Christie ate it. (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
amazing projection up there.
"liberals make a bunch of concrete, material arguments in favor of something. i disagree with those conclusions because of my own ideological disbelief and romantic cultural attachments. the conclusion: they're communists."
― goole, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
Cooincidentally, gas prices in Chicago are inching up to near the $4 mark! Which took me completely by surprise, I haven't driven to work in 4 months, but I had to visit a school for an inspection and was shocked to see that price.
― rendezvous then i'm through with HOOS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ goole and his otmfm-ness
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:08 (fourteen years ago)
so I imagine this thing in WI is still going to pass, but I wonder how excited Walker is about committing political suicide to do it or whether he's already got his eye on some other position beyond the gov office
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
as bad as public transportation can be in northern NJ, driving here is sheer torture in a half-zillion quantifiable ways that public transportation at its worst can never match.
― I saw the future, but Chris Christie ate it. (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
he's a soldier in the Koch army. when Walker goes down, someone will replace him after he's gone to Teabag jihad paradise.
― I saw the future, but Chris Christie ate it. (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
I've already seen a couple of "promise petitions" going around ahead of a recall movement set to start after he's been in office for a year.
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:14 (fourteen years ago)
i dont think walker quite realizes the extent to which public opinion has turned against him in WI. on that prank call he seemed totally oblivious. shocking!
― max, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:16 (fourteen years ago)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/03/huckabee-asserts-hes-not-a-bir.html
During an interview with The Steve Malzberg Show, Huckabee said the president, "having grown up in Kenya," would have a different - more hostile - perspective on the British: I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the average American. He repeated the claim, saying: ...if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the average American.
He repeated the claim, saying:
...if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:18 (fourteen years ago)
having grown up in hawaii i can confirm that it is identical to kenya
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
Don't dancing girls say "Mau Mau" as they lei you?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
having grown up in a hole in the ground behind his grandpappy's still huckabee probably has a different perspective on what it means to be an illiterate redneck
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:21 (fourteen years ago)
hula, mau mau, aloha y'all
― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:21 (fourteen years ago)
sort of interested in the details of huckabee's belief that the british were not "a bunch of imperialists"
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)
also that americans don't grow up hearing that they were
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
so...i mean...can you run for president and win after demonstrating your ignorance to that degree? huckabee's out? or...shit like that doesn't really matter?
i am boggled by whatever world we live in
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
Reagan once told us that trees produced air pollution.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:26 (fourteen years ago)
before or after 1980?
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
I wouldn't say he's automatically out, but that particular interview certainly would come back to haunt him were he the GOP candidate.
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
in 1980!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
Poor intelligence won't prevent you from being elected as president. Poor intelligence may or may not prevent you from being a successful friend.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
*er, president
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)
this interview isn't going to haunt Huckabee, Huck is not gonna win the nomination, much less the presidency, nothing to see hear but a dumb guy being dumb
*bass solo*
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)
huh who would think a white southern conservative would look at the brits ruling kenya a little differently from a kenyan
― goole, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)
Huckabee has no chance of getting the nomination. He's mistrusted and despised anyway by a chunk of the GOP constituency.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:33 (fourteen years ago)
besides, I just read in Rolling Stone that he's subbing for Geddy Lee in the last leg of Rush's world tour.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
it's sorta interesting that he's genuinely ignorant enough to say something like that, like palin-ignorant-ignorant to the extent that he has no idea where obama grew up, not just a no-holds-barred politician using the issue as bait. I didn't think that was the case for most of these guys, honestly.
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
Read the comments.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)
my friends who own cars take light rail most of the time (to work and school) and get in their cars when they want to go somewhere light rail doesn't go (to the beach). it's almost as if both methods of transport are useful and worthwhile. wait no sorry lol i went insane for a second. everything is either american or stalinist and we must be strong and pick american.― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, March 1, 2011 3:00 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, March 1, 2011 3:00 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark
real talk. i am a cyclist and a car owner and a high-speed rail ~dreamer~. bikes are for getting around in the city with Rugged American Independence, cars are for going places away from the city (where poor people live!!!!!!), and trains are for getting tanked on a long journey when you would otherwise be driving like a schmuck
― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
Don't kids in America grow up hearing how the british were imperialists and persecuted george washington (taxes on tea came up I recall)
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)
Cooincidentally, gas prices in Chicago are inching up to near the $4 mark
x-post Well, there is some turmoil in the middle east, don't you know. Or so I hear.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
Gas prices in Little Rock soared past the $6 mark ten minutes after Huckabee's remarks.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
The Middle east stuff just pushed gas prices up this high a little faster than they would have risen anyway. It's the supply/demand dynamic that's driving the overall trend, and that situation isn't going to improve. ever. Only recessions can drive down the price of oil at this point - and they will.
― Z S, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
― iatee, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:56 (fourteen years ago)
yup.
fwiw, i've done 12 years of light rail in denver when not bike commuting, and it's not really worth it anymore. it's much more immediate outlay vs. parking, more time by 10 mins, and more hassle. feel bad sayin it, but its mostly subsidized remote parking imo.
― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 22:13 (fourteen years ago)
i think if i weren't biking 4 days a week or so, i guess i'd still light rail it? that'd be a lot of miles.
― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 22:14 (fourteen years ago)
i would *hope* this would kill any chances Huckabee would have with any disgruntled '08 Obama voters - which is what any GOP nom is going to have to be counting on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onHkywYc_1M&feature=related
“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” <--- re the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. i mean, please do fuck off...
― ҉ _ǁÖǁ_ ҉ __ (will), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
For those disappointed that Jerry Falwell never made it to the White House.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
hey guys i know i'm a little behind on this but uh people live in texas and if you forgot that part in your smugness then fuck you
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 05:18 (fourteen years ago)
100,000 teachers laid off? I mean I know Texas is a big state but that seems ridiculous. Rick Perry has said a lot of bullshit in his day, mind you. Are these plans coming from state legislators or solely the lips of Gov. Perry?― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:45 PM
― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:45 PM
most of the state is actually still dealing with a perpetual teacher shortage
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 05:19 (fourteen years ago)
i spent most of my life thinking the right wing was always inventing these ludicrous strawmen of smug 'left coasters' and 'east coast liberals' who held most of the middle of the country in disdain and didn't care about how bad things were there, but in the last few months i've discovered these caricatures weren't quite as invented as i'd thought--as a texas liberal it made me feel foolish that i'd been that ignorant, and as a person of the left it leaves me with a really bad taste in my mouth when people who i think are on my side basically say they don't care if 25.1 million people get fucked over
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 05:23 (fourteen years ago)
Are these plans coming from state legislators or solely the lips of Gov. Perry?― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:45 PM
a few legislators will fight them, and they will probably lose
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 05:25 (fourteen years ago)
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, March 2, 2011 12:23 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
lol washington, dc
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 05:27 (fourteen years ago)
but anyway, you're right
I sincerely doubt G Effing Will sincerely means anything he says in that train/car op/ed by the way.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 05:37 (fourteen years ago)
for better or worse texas does a good job presenting itself as a symbol of lots of shitty aspects of america - republicans, machismo, anti-intellectualism, SUVs, sprawl, oil money, dubya, jerry jones etc. this idea of 'texas' is not just something we project on texas, it’s something lots of texans you actually meet do a pretty good job at advertising - "don't mess with texas" etc.
smug elitist west coast snobs - I'm speaking as one - don't have as much disdain for the idea of wyoming or idaho or whatever because they rarely meet people who say "fuck you I'm from montana"
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:03 (fourteen years ago)
for better or worse texas does a good job presenting itself as a symbol of lots of shitty aspects of america - republicans, machismo, anti-intellectualism, SUVs, sprawl, oil money, dubya, jerry jones etc. this idea of 'texas' is not just something we project on texas, it’s something lots of texans you actually meet do a pretty good job at advertising - "don't mess with texas" etc
dude come on i am always super otming your posts in this bitch cause i feel like you're incisive and cut through the bullshit with a lot of media narrative noise and what have you, is this seriously your argument here, 'the texans on tv are assholes and the texans i've met are proud of being from texas'
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:11 (fourteen years ago)
most ppl from texas i met in college (quite a few) were proud of their texas heritage in a charming/cute hank hill way, not in a gross way -- if any of them said "fuck you" to me, it wasn't bcuz of texas pride
then again i don't know many buck stricklands? idk
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:12 (fourteen years ago)
well the prob is you're acting like smug elitist west coast assholes actually want to see poor people in texas suffer! we mostly just make fun of the idea of texas because the state makes itself a pretty easy and big target. so do california and new york and they receive the same treatment from the other side.
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:15 (fourteen years ago)
i mean i don't want to derail the politics thread to TALK ABT TEXAS but i feel like in a lot of way texas represents america writ comically large--your belligerent exceptionalism and space-craving and oil barons and pockets of xenophobia, yes, these are problems we have in texas and also rather deeply in america--that still doesn't mean it's acceptable to tell the second most populous state in america and all of the poor people in it that they don't fucking matter and what happens to them is good riddance
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:16 (fourteen years ago)
like, I don't wish bad things on texans, I wish bad things on 'texas', 'texas' representing the list of things I gave above. bad things for 'texas' would mean the democrats take control of the state.
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:16 (fourteen years ago)
rick perry should secede from breathing, that i'll agree w/
― pop the s1ock (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:17 (fourteen years ago)
i mean like i think what i'm saying is that like
it has always made me confused and angry when people on the right said shit like that about california and new york
and to discover that people on 'my side' say the same kind of malicious half-baked shit about the place i'm from, despite my years of saying 'what the fuck is wrong with you clueless right wing assholes acting like the people in these places are dumb disconnected idiots,' that i spent years defending ~~~~~west coast liberals~~~~~~~ so to speak from this kind of shit and then to find it thrown back in my face is frustrating and disullusioning and i don't think it should be accepted as part of the discourse no matter who its coming from or who its directed at
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:20 (fourteen years ago)
again, i really believed obama when he talked shit about 'elevating the discourse,' because i really think that shit needs to happen, still
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:21 (fourteen years ago)
what I posted last time this came up
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qnsccs9ad0ogbjv03kexqw.gif
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:21 (fourteen years ago)
the whole "let Texas secede thing" seems really ridiculous if you've ever spent time in Austin or San Antonio. Or the Hill Country. Yeah a lot of the state sucks. A lot of every state sucks.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:24 (fourteen years ago)
again, there's a difference between joking about 'texas' on a msg board and actually wanting bad things to happen to poor people. I don't think anyone here thinks that texas is nothing more than 'texas'.
but that said, I mean, to paraphrase my bro limbaugh, 'I hope perry fails', and yeah, it sucks, but that would be bad for texas. I hope conservative policies are demonstratively horrible for texas because the GOP needs to fail big and publicly for the country to take any steps forward. if reagan were in charge of california right now I'd be wishing the same thing on my home state.
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:43 (fourteen years ago)
big, publicly *and repetitively
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:50 (fourteen years ago)
again, there's a difference between joking about 'texas' on a msg board and actually wanting bad things to happen to poor people ... I hope conservative policies are demonstratively horrible for texas
dude i'm not saying you're an asshole for wanting conservative think tanks to be demonstrably proven wrong, i'm saying you don't seem to see the connection between that bad policy being enacted, failing, and it severely fucking up the state. i don't believe you're saying 'i'm willing to let people get fucked over to make a political point,' because you're a smart guy and i genuinely think you're not an asshole who would believe something like that, but do you see how what you're saying sounds, and what it seems to imply?
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 06:59 (fourteen years ago)
like, i guess unlike you guys, i am not ok with texas being used as a cato institute laboratory, because in addition to demonstrably proving cato's thinking wrong it will also demonstrably fuck up a lot of lives, and i'm not comfortable with that as a texan or an american or a person
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:01 (fourteen years ago)
that's not a price i'm willing to pay for the dems to 'win the narrative' for an election cycle
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:02 (fourteen years ago)
and iatee i'm not really yelling at you here i'm just kind of yelling and you're also here
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:03 (fourteen years ago)
I don't want anything to come in and fuck up people's lives, whether they be Texas or Missouri or Alabama or Massachusetts. That said, I don't think it's just about Democrats winning the narrative. Some policy ideas are never going to go away until they're demonstrably proven not to work, so it seems inevitable that ones like these will be tried somewhere. If the Dems/the Left/America at large benefits from the fallout, then so be it. However, considering that Reaganomics/deregulation/free market democracy has in many ways demonstrably failed (and quite spectacularly at that) and yet a lot of the country refuses to accept that fact makes me think that even a massive failure in these policies in Texas won't change anyone's mind.
― Gukbe, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:12 (fourteen years ago)
that's the thing, i kind of feel like THE ENTIRE 80s already proved most of perry's ideas wrong, but what do i know
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:13 (fourteen years ago)
after 8 years of bush it's pretty hard not to see the connection between bad policy being enacted, failing, and fucking up everyone's life. I mean we're about the same age which means that nearly everyone you and I know irl has been pretty affected by the national economy. trust me, we're on the same page!
texas as a lab, I mean part of it was the dubya association, part of it is texas' recent economic/population growth, part of it is just *size*...but for better or worse it's now a prominent member of the 'these places are basically countries' club. and for at least another two years, likely for longer than that, texas is the only member of that club where republicans run the whole show. (I'm not including florida.) as such it's got GOP symbolism whether we want it to or not. and I mean this is more than the democrats winning a national election cycle, I think serious GOP failure is essential for the democrats to slowly undubya texas.
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:20 (fourteen years ago)
I've been thinking thoughts about Texas (me) and Wisconsin. I look forward to the coming chaos and feel like we are all getting what comes, and some people are going to feel it for the first time. Makes me feel shitty, but I'm glad there might be some new members in the feeling shitty club.
not a defensible or coherent argument. at least I'm not in charge of anything.
― UiiiiiiiiiiiiD (Zachary Taylor), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 08:25 (fourteen years ago)
This David Brooks takedown is, like amazing. A thing of true beauty. Just the opening paragraph is, well . . .
"We're going to be doing a lot of deficit cutting over the next several years," David Brooks announced, plurally, in their column in today's New York Times. Little-known fact: the byline "David Brooks" is produced by five guys named "David Brook." They all get together and agree on stuff!
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 13:59 (fourteen years ago)
Hoos, horse has left the barn in re: lefties going "lol Texas! lol Georgia! lol Alabama! lol Mississippi!" etc imo -- sure, it's already cost them hearts, minds, votes & elections, whole constituencies that they won't get back in our lifetime, but what the hell, right? life's short, must get lols
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:18 (fourteen years ago)
i'm skeptical of the idea that "texas is a lab" and "Some policy ideas are never going to go away until they're demonstrably proven not to work". lives will be made much worse in texas to no real detriment to perry, and the ideas don't have to 'work' because there's no definition of success that everyone would agree on. did the state's budget shrink? great! keep at it! the ideas never go away.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:42 (fourteen years ago)
apologies to a Hoos. i was just picking on TX because of Perry. and didn't they actually enter the Union with some clause about secession? hell, I live in Tennessee. the asshattery our state legislature has involved itself with over the last 2-3 years is well-documented. in actuality, the whole of 'Dixie' along w/ TX should probably secede. all the normals will have to relocate, sure, but with great change comes great sacrifice. RIP NOLA, but otherwise eh.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:45 (fourteen years ago)
ps i'm joking (mostly)
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:46 (fourteen years ago)
I'm still lolling/boggling at southern Arizona wanting to become its own state
like, I really really REALLY hope that happens because it would be amazing history in my lifetime
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:51 (fourteen years ago)
the byline "David Brooks" is produced by five guys named "David Brook."
Totally off-topic, that made me think about this awesome ensemble-name + conductor-name combination:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B001DCQJ36.01_SL75_.jpg
― anatol_merklich, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:51 (fourteen years ago)
iatee is right; even though more people voted for Obama in TX in 2008 than did in IL, its "GOP symbolism" warrants hoping outcomes "demonstratively horrible for texas", including those 3.5 million Obama voters. That's just the cost of its "dubya association". Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs.
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:03 (fourteen years ago)
How I miss these days:
http://www.incredibletvandmovies.com/jr_ewing_lowers_gas_prices__.jpg
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:04 (fourteen years ago)
kind of amazing how some of ILX is so blithely sanguine about directly saying "fuck you, BIG HOOS aka the steendriver"
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:12 (fourteen years ago)
iatee is right; even though more people voted for Obama in TX in 2008 than did in IL,
Well: a) Not by much, a couple hundred thousand more, which is not so impressive whenb) You consider that Texas has double the population of Illinois, andc) McCain still won the overall Texas vote by 12%, 55-43.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:17 (fourteen years ago)
all this "eh fuck tx" stuff is really weird to me. i'm not the biggest fan of the american south but, don't you see it's kind of pointless? the policy outcomes in, say, alabama are pretty miserable but it hasn't "demonstrated" anything to anyone.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:20 (fourteen years ago)
if iatee wants, I can drive him through Texas in my SUV to show him how the other half lives.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:21 (fourteen years ago)
No, we need to demonstrate to "smug elitist west coast snobs" (and east coast ones too) that GOP policies will wreck America, and so we hope that life in TX, including for those 3.5 million Obama voters there, becomes "demonstratively horrible".
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:25 (fourteen years ago)
if you say so, seems like everybody knows what they're gonna know going into the deal
― goole, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:26 (fourteen years ago)
hey Mississippi is already there. just use those poor bastards as the example.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:27 (fourteen years ago)
the thing is you kinda gotta just lead by example on this shit Alfred - faithfully detail what's good in your neck of the woods and try to ignore the pig-ignorant "all those people are backwoods assholes! sure, there are some good ones" shit -- people who get hard-ons from flexing that shit are self-stimming and aren't ever going to grow out of it.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:27 (fourteen years ago)
I think that making life "demonstratively horrible" for millions of Americans will teach new, important lessons. Those are my "smug elitist west coast" values; guessing you probably live in flyover country, goole.
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:28 (fourteen years ago)
it's been so long since there was a good poli thread troll session, this is like a homecoming
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:36 (fourteen years ago)
and I thought I was gonna have to resort to posting more Stalin photos!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:37 (fourteen years ago)
iatee isn't a troll, he's an west coast avatar, standing atop a high-speed train riding oil-lessly into the ~future~
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:40 (fourteen years ago)
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, March 2, 2011 9:27 AM (10 minutes ago)
A+ idea
― WmC, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:41 (fourteen years ago)
I'm not sure that counting on anyone to draw lessons from the plight of millions of people that were fucked by their state governments is a good plan. People are really, really good at ignoring the misery of others.
xpost is there trolling going on here? I can't figure out if people are being sarcastic or not.
― Z S, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:42 (fourteen years ago)
"I think that making life "demonstratively horrible" for millions of Americans will teach new, important lessons." yeah well i think you're pretty dense because if those lessons were going to be learned (by whom, btw?) they would have been learned many times over by now in 2011. people are not taught this way.
plus you're forgetting, funny enough, that tinier government IS the "good outcome" that quite a large number of people are after. everything else that might happen subsequently is not very important to them.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:44 (fourteen years ago)
goole who gives a shit? all that everything else will just happen to some assholes in Texas
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:45 (fourteen years ago)
People haven't learned the lessons yet because they haven't been made strongly enough. The GOP needs to fail big and publicly for the country to take any steps forward. That the lives of millions of people who didn't support these new policies will be made demonstrably horrible is just the basis of a statistic.
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:48 (fourteen years ago)
The GOP needs to fail big and publicly for the country to take any steps forward.
Didn't this just happen? 2000-2008 iirc?
― Z S, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:51 (fourteen years ago)
Obviously not, since they didn't learn their lesson.
(guess nobody reads my posts on this fucking thread if you think I'm being earnest here)
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:54 (fourteen years ago)
Ugh, use a little WINKYFACE if you're going into ultrasarcasm mode. There are approximately 3 billion posts on this thread and I don't put the potential to hold idiotic views past anyone
― Z S, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:57 (fourteen years ago)
tbf it wasn't until the second post that I caught on
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:58 (fourteen years ago)
I figure iatee's still asleep in his west coast paradise so I wanted to make sure he had someone standing in for them.
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:59 (fourteen years ago)
Also, that view (X needs to fall apart before people will ever truly learn) is pretty common on a number of issues. eg, "we'll finally get strong action on climate change when some huge disaster unambiguously linked to global warming occurs"
― Z S, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:00 (fourteen years ago)
iatee is a collective?
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:00 (fourteen years ago)
"he needs to hit rock bottom before his addiction can be helped"
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:00 (fourteen years ago)
just like people who get lung cancer always give up smoking
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:01 (fourteen years ago)
haha xp "them" = his views
but joining the iatee smug west coast elitist collective would be fun if someone else would pay the rent for my house in Laguna Beach
― Euler, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:02 (fourteen years ago)
baniaktee
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:14 (fourteen years ago)
bit of a stretch but i chuckled
― odd future wolves GM trade them all (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:16 (fourteen years ago)
I also would have accepted "YES! NO STATIC, DEMOCRATIC!"
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
loling at upthread Texas kerfuffle. which I guess was mostly my fault? I was not being entirely serious - my grandmother was born in Texas and I have friends + coworkers who grew up/live there, I love Willie Nelson, etc. - but there is a huge, deeply rooted rivalry between California and Texas, particularly in the industry I work in (see Enron, CA deregulation disaster etc.), and a little good-natured ribbing about said rivalry goes with the territory. Made only more ironic by the fact that our state politics are pretty much just as fucked up as Texas' and we are lol broke etc.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:34 (fourteen years ago)
like I was not making a "smug west coast liberal" joke about lol middle America/the South, I was specifically referencing the well-documented and verrrrrry old political/economic rivalry specifically between California and Texas, one that involves a great deal of schaudenfreude whenever something bad happens to the other side.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:38 (fourteen years ago)
otm this is all shakey mo's fault
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:49 (fourteen years ago)
ftr i was making a smug deep south liberal joke about my mind-bogglingly ignorant/ ridiculous region.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:52 (fourteen years ago)
How quickly we all forget the Texas school board textbook kerfuffle, which showed how local political asshattery can instantly affect life for others elsewhere.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:56 (fourteen years ago)
Which is to say, a state like Texas made even more stupid and poor does not portend good things for anyone. Unfortunately, the only way to get most Americans to pay attention is to take something away from them. Kind of like children.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:57 (fourteen years ago)
like, tea parties seem to be outposts of crazy most places in the country.
but tea party gospel is something i've been hearing from the overwhelming majority of people around here since i've been old enough to understand words. it just didn't have an idiotic name yet.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:58 (fourteen years ago)
A brand new front of stupid in the war on abortion: Fetuses to be presented as witnesses before Ohio House committee considering abortion restrictions:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Two fetuses will be presented as witnesses before an Ohio legislative committee that is hearing a bill to outlaw abortions after the first heartbeat can be detected inside a woman's womb.The fetuses will appear live and in color before the committee on a video screen projecting ultrasound images taken from their pregnant mothers' bodies. Janet Folger Porter, head of Faith2Action, an anti-abortion group, said the fetuses will be the youngest witnesses to ever testify when they come in front of the House Health and Aging Committee Wednesday morning."Lawmakers are going to be able to see as well as hear the babies' heartbeats," said Porter. "We think this is going to do a lot to keep other babies' heartbeats going in Ohio." She said two Ohio women -- one nine weeks and the other 11 weeks pregnant -- have agreed to be scanned with ultrasound machines for the hearing.
The fetuses will appear live and in color before the committee on a video screen projecting ultrasound images taken from their pregnant mothers' bodies. Janet Folger Porter, head of Faith2Action, an anti-abortion group, said the fetuses will be the youngest witnesses to ever testify when they come in front of the House Health and Aging Committee Wednesday morning.
"Lawmakers are going to be able to see as well as hear the babies' heartbeats," said Porter. "We think this is going to do a lot to keep other babies' heartbeats going in Ohio." She said two Ohio women -- one nine weeks and the other 11 weeks pregnant -- have agreed to be scanned with ultrasound machines for the hearing.
PZ Myers tears this to shreds.
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:12 (fourteen years ago)
I hope the fetuses are held in contempt of court when they refuse to testify.
In reality, Texas isn't terribly different from lots of other states (Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Wisconsin, even Illinois ...), with Democratic-voting population bases and conservative-leaning suburbs and outlier areas. Like, no one would think Oregon analogous to Texas, but the states feature very similar problems, with oddly similar short-term solutions (and equally shaky results). It all goes back to those maps that shows the disproportionate representational power of Republicans, whose rural constituency, in terms of population, is much smaller than that of urban Democrats.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:15 (fourteen years ago)
yep. senates are stupid. also the electoral college.
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:29 (fourteen years ago)
In Nebraska today they passed one of those no abortion services for anyone, rape victim or otherwise, except under separate rider bills. Scarlet letter/the-less-you-know shit. GOP assault on reproductive rights this year is really fucking offensive
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)
Texas GOP is making the same old GOP win-win situation for themselves. If shit goes well, "yay! We made shit go well!". If shit goes to hell, "See? Big government is a disaster! Let's shrink it even smaller!" No lessons will be learned.
It truly chills my bones to think how bad things are gonna get in this fkin country before some pol actually dares to say, out loud: "We have to raise taxes."
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
But look at all the jobs it's added to the economy! xp
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
All those unaborted fetuses will need jobs eventually though.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:50 (fourteen years ago)
How is my ancestral state of S Dakota doing with their proposal to make the killing of abortion providers = justifiable homicide?
What the FUCK has happened to all my good sensible midwestern farmers? (Don't answer, I know already).
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:53 (fourteen years ago)
so these guys are in the news now:
http://www.fmafe.org/Home.html
― goole, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
This is all more class war, imo. Thurston and Lovie can and will still jet Muffy to Canada for an abortion, while the less affluent will go to back alleys, just like in the good old days.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:00 (fourteen years ago)
xpost, sorry.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:01 (fourteen years ago)
Oh, I think South Dakota thankfully thought better of the justifiable homicide bill and for now it won't become law.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:10 (fourteen years ago)
S Dakota seems to be serving as a kind of display case for doomed extremist-catnip legislation...
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:11 (fourteen years ago)
^so very OTM... not to mention the clowns fighting the pro-life cause in the halls of congress. do you really think for a second that if their wives’ or daughters’ lives were in jeopardy, or if they were raped, or if their underage daughter was knocked up by a “brown” that these folks wouldn’t have it taken care of by the finest medical professionals money could buy, regardless if they had to leave the country to do it?
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:17 (fourteen years ago)
loling at anybody being named Muffy in this day and age
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)
or if their underage daughter was knocked up by a “brown”
misread this as "Scott Brown" lol
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:32 (fourteen years ago)
Chris Brown.
It's ALL implicit class warfare. Wealth is consolidated among the top few, who think everything looks fine (see that stock market go!) and are rich enough to get sympathetic pols elected. But of course, when the Dems point this out, then IT'S ON, and class warfare has been declared the the Dems puss out and back down, cowed. Which is another example of the Republican win-win rule.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:32 (fourteen years ago)
Mufti Howell
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1941297_9d3946a23c.jpg
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:46 (fourteen years ago)
I propose that when prog Dems wake up and form a new party, it be called Class Warfare or Tax the Shit Outta Rich People.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:49 (fourteen years ago)
I'm happy to have my own taxes raised 10% into the bargain if the same is applied to Thurston, Lovey and Mufti.
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
c'mon guys Sonic Youth doesn't make THAT much money
― ice cr?m's world of female people (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:17 (fourteen years ago)
I am more inspired by what's going on now in Madison than anything that happened in 2008
Let alone the fact that 100,000 people showed up in the snow to protest, dozens of people camping overnight in 15 degree weather -- the fact that Walker is just such a transparent villain makes me hope that Fox is risking giving their game away by supporting him
things like this - http://twitter.com/BryonEagon/status/42688858655178752
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
my friend reminded me last night. the crazy thing about 100,000 people showing up to protest is that the population of Madison is estimated at 235,626
the other amazing thing is just how quiet the major media outlets are about this. I shouldn't be shocked; I know I shouldn't; but 100,000 people was not a statistic you read almost anywhere. I brought this up at the coffee shop this morning and the normally very well informed people there did not know.
so Amateurist lives around there? any local updates?
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
All I know is that I tried to donate pizza today, and after 10 minutes on hold was disconnected. But I will try again tomorrow!
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:53 (fourteen years ago)
Not that I want to depress J0hnD even more, but for fuck's sake:
A bill passed by the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday would prohibit state colleges and universities from using state funds — or tuition — to teach students how to perform abortions. According to one state representative, this would effectively shut down the University of Arizona's ob-gyn program.The bill, which is on its way to the state senate, says in part,public monies or tax monies of this state or any political subdivision of this state or any federal funds passing through the state treasury or the treasury of any political subdivision of this state or monies paid by students as part of tuition or fees to a state university or a community college shall not be expended or allocated for training to perform abortions.That means that not only can the University of Arizona and other state schools not use state money to train abortion providers — students can't pay for that training themselves either, even if they want to. And according to State Rep. Matt Heinz, since the University of Arizona College of Medicine's ob-gyn program would no longer be allowed to teach abortion, it would likely lose its accreditation (the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires abortion training). He told Cronkite News, "Two hundred residents who are currently actively training will actually have to leave. Their training will be forfeited and it will be like the program never existed."
The bill, which is on its way to the state senate, says in part,
public monies or tax monies of this state or any political subdivision of this state or any federal funds passing through the state treasury or the treasury of any political subdivision of this state or monies paid by students as part of tuition or fees to a state university or a community college shall not be expended or allocated for training to perform abortions.
That means that not only can the University of Arizona and other state schools not use state money to train abortion providers — students can't pay for that training themselves either, even if they want to. And according to State Rep. Matt Heinz, since the University of Arizona College of Medicine's ob-gyn program would no longer be allowed to teach abortion, it would likely lose its accreditation (the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires abortion training). He told Cronkite News, "Two hundred residents who are currently actively training will actually have to leave. Their training will be forfeited and it will be like the program never existed."
http://jezebel.com/#!5774777/arizona-bill-could-close-university-ob+gyn-program
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)
~blood shoots out of eyeballs~
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:09 (fourteen years ago)
If only D Boon were alive today. He'd either become the new Woody Guthrie/Che or eat himself to death out of despair
― Franklin_The_Turtle, Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:13 (fourteen years ago)
Unconstitutional, surely?
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:14 (fourteen years ago)
I dunno about that. I go to a med school run by Catholics and our main university hospital doesn't do abortions (although I did get to scrub in on a D&C on a miscarriage), so I do not know what goes on elsewhere, but it has been suggested that nobody learns how to do an abortion in med school anywhere. I wouldn't doubt that other med schools will let interested students scrub in on abortions, but apparently we can do that too if we want (we just have to go to an affiliate hospital not run by Jesuits to do so). Scrubbing in and assisting on a procedure has nothing to do with learning how to do a procedure, or else I would technically have learned how to do cesarean sections, liver transplants, total hip replacements, robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies, etc etc etc. Students just stand there and watch and get asked questions about obscure anatomical landmarks and hold retractors and suture a little. You learn how to be the person holding the knife (or in this case, the serial dilators and curretage and/or suction device) in residency.
ACGME doesn't apply to students, just to residents. Residents don't pay tuition. Students do, and that money, as best I can tell, does not go towards funding resident education or paying resident salaries, so much as it does to funding student education. I get that it is an attempt to further restrict the ability to train abortion providers, and I think it's stupid and wrong, but it's also a pretty ineffectual measure on its surface. Now, South Dakota's whole deal, that is an effective way to restrict abortion providers.
― C-L, Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:16 (fourteen years ago)
Argh wtf. I just wrote and called AND emailed my state senator about that. Hopefully this thing doesn't pass.
― wizards of wonder are the keepers of knowledge (Abbbottt), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:18 (fourteen years ago)
information about the attack on doctor training for abortion services is well summarized in this book, which I recommend.
I am trying to keep my focus on what I can do positively in this fight without saying all the time "this is why it's important that every politician who's pro-choice be vocally, visibly, loudly pro-choice," but: Democrats have been conceding rhetorical & legislative ground on reproductive rights, giving a bit here, compromising there, for a long time; what we're seeing now is what happens when you do that for a few election cycles.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:22 (fourteen years ago)
but I mean the focus within the movement will shortly be on clandestine clinics & on funding them so that women who can't afford or avail themselves of reproductive services through legal channels will still be able to get the care they need - I know that sounds alarmist, I will be stoked if people get to say "remember when you thought abortion services were going to have to go underground" to me a few years down the line
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
This whole thing, even with the residency rider, is unforgivable.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:38 (fourteen years ago)
C-L: not sure you're right, unfortunately. from the snippet of the bill on jezebel:
which is to say: the bill doesn't apply ~only~ to tuition, it just includes it in the larger "state funding" category. so since the U of AZ OB program undoubtedly receives "public monies or tax monies of this state," it would be prohibited from training residents in the procedure. and, per the ACGME:
No program or resident with a religious or moral objection shall be required to provide training in or to perform induced abortions. Otherwise, access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education. This education can be provided outside the institution. Experience with management of complications of abortion must be provided to all residents. If a residency program has a religious, moral, or legal restriction that prohibits the residents from performing abortions within the institution, the program must ensure that the residents receive satisfactory education and experience in managing the complications of abortion. Furthermore, such residency programs (1) must not impede residents in the programs who do not have religious or moral objections from receiving education and experience in performing abortions at another institution and (2) must publicize such policy to all applicants to those residency program.
and here's the thing: if the education is provided "outside the institution," then presumably some snippet of taxpayer money has gone towards funding that. or even institutional profit at, say, the university hospital. i'm sure there are clever tax-structures that could ensure that resident training in abortions, off-site, would be funded solely by "private" funding, but that shouldn't be anything anyone should have to consider. they're clearly targeting resident training, not student training.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:41 (fourteen years ago)
xpost to myself
and here's the thing: if the education is provided "outside the institution," then presumably some snippet of taxpayer money has gone towards funding that
note that this isn't really an issue for, say, a Jesuit institution. they probably have to contend with alumni/students/Jesus being concerned about where their contributions/beneficence goes, but I have to imagine that an arrangement between $JESUIT_SCHOOL and Planned Parenthood might be structured in such a way that it's pretty easy for the program to keep it's karmic scorecard clean. not exactly sure how, but at least a private school's policies aren't bound by ~actual law~. they're only answering to god anyway
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:47 (fourteen years ago)
search i'm too lazy to do right now: how many private OB-GYN residencies are there in the US? how many of them are affiliated with religious schools? any?
i bet catholic medical schools dodge the abortion thing because it isn't required for med school accreditation. whereas there would be no way to avoid it with a residency, so they just pass altogether
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:50 (fourteen years ago)
It does but imsmr (it may well not) residency training is funded by HHS federally, mostly; part of Medicare involves paying resident-training hospitals for their work in doing so. Some other part of it is funded by the presence of cheap labor to do much of the billable work of the hospital. Cursory googling suggests that there are already attempts to claw out at the HHS/Medicare funding by prohibiting programs receiving federal funds from restricting trainees who refuse to participate in abortion training due to conscience, but nothing of the "We refuse to fund abortion training" variety on a federal level. Now if someone tries to make a federal version of this Arizona thing, then basically it is ring-all-the-alarms time and we go march on Capitol Hill.
I know someone WILL attempt to take this statute and torturously connect student tuition at UA's school (and I think there's a DO school in like Mesa also) to residency training money, but I just don't think it's actually a thing that would actually ever succeed. I feel like this is a measure where a guy is trying to score points by saying "Hey, place that is not doing this thing, currently, my constituents and my Lord Jesus Christ say that you CANNOT do this thing. Vote for me in 2012!") I am naive in this way, I suppose.
― C-L, Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
I just want to scream and kick some woman-oppressin' heads in.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 01:03 (fourteen years ago)
just quickly can i say thx for the reinforcements upthread, was starting to think i was on some Me Against the World ride or die shit
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 3 March 2011 01:05 (fourteen years ago)
xp imsmr (again) I think Gtown's residents go learn abortions at Washington Hosp Center (with whom our program merged last year, and who is listed on Med Students for Choice's list of places that provide abortion/family planning training: http://www.medicalstudentsforchoice.org/index.php?page=residency-guides ) I assume something along those lines is the case at other programs primarily associated with Catholic hospitals, because ACGME says so.
Technically students here aren't supposed to be able to get OCPs for birth control, either, but we just have a startlingly high rate of dysmenorrhea here, from what I've been told.
― C-L, Thursday, 3 March 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
I was gonna ask about fibroid removal and D&Cs ;-)
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 01:14 (fourteen years ago)
we just have a startlingly high rate of dysmenorrhea here, from what I've been told.
!!!
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 3 March 2011 02:56 (fourteen years ago)
wau
― odd future wolves GM trade them all (bernard snowy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:41 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
yes. i live there. where to begin?
re. capitol occupation: GOP, via senate majority leader fitzgerald and dep't of admin. (appointed by walker) has all but cleared the capitol. they were pretty smooth about it. they warned people that on sunday at 4 PM they'd be clearing out the place. people hunkered down, prepared for civil disobedience -- including a few dozen off-duty cops and firefighters (!). but then... nothing. nothing happened. folks were told, nevermind, it's alright, you don't have to leave, and we'll reopen for more folks tomorrow at 8 AM. so people got a false sense of security, and all but 50 or so left for the night. when 8 AM rolls around--- BAM. nobody in. the rules keep changing, as of now they are defying a court-issued restraining order, but the bottom line is that almost nobody aside from office workers and lobbyists (!) is getting in the capitol for more than a few minutes at a time, if that. the attrition among the 50 or so that had stayed that last night means that, well i dunno how many are in there now but my union only has one or two folks in--and we were nearly running the show last week. not sure what will happen next. judge may hold walker and his dept. of admin chief in contempt. we'll see. the hearing at the court resumes thurs at 1 PM i believe.
re. senate fight: dem senators still in illinois, still say they are resolved not to return until situation in madison changes. one brave GOP senator, dale schultz, has been semi-publicly chastising walker et al. he won't publicly say that definitely will vote "no" on the budget repair bill, because once he does that they'll kick him out of the GOP caucus (!) and he won't be able to sway the few other fence-sitting repubs. but he will vote "no." we just need two others to stick their necks out. to that end we are phone banking the fuck out of their districts to get constituents to put pressure on them. but no doubt they are getting equal pressure from the other end (i.e. from scott fitzgerald and walker). on that note....
recalls: our union, weeks ago, suggested that we start working to recall the eight GOP senators who are eligible for recall this year. the other unions weren't sure about the strategy, but now the state democratic party is behind it, and official papers to start collecting recall signatures have started for at least four GOP senators. four more to come. there's a strong possibly we can swing the senate back to the dems. but that will take months. signatures have to be collected 60 days from when recall attempt is filed, and then you have to have a special election, yadda yadda. walker, as you probably know, can't be recalled until jan. 2012.
what else y'all want to know? i gots yer updates right here.
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 3 March 2011 08:59 (fourteen years ago)
oh and dudes donate to us: http://www.defendwisconsin.org/
we're doing good work, honestly. donate buttons on the right column.
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 3 March 2011 09:00 (fourteen years ago)
oh yeah when gov walker gave his budget address yesterday... capitol on near-complete lockdown. barricades (concrete but mostly plastic netting) set up so that on many sides of the capitol you couldn't get within 20 yards of doors let alone inside.... dozens of state troopers (state troopers are run by the father of the senate and assembly majority leaders!) everywhere.... 1,000s of people outside yelling "let us in!" "hear our voice!"
somewhere in there tea party troll senator glenn grothman decided to provoke a scene by wandering through the crowds. sure enough, people started harassing him, and he's immediately on the phone with FOX news: "you want your union thugs? here they are." btw i had my own interaction with grothman 2 weeks ago when this shit was just starting. unpleasant man. just google him and the word "appalling" to learn just how unpleasant.
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 3 March 2011 09:04 (fourteen years ago)
ugh Grothman was on some MSNBC show I had on in the background tonight. Started paying attention and he was just the lowest, most craven, condescending piece of shit imaginable. Calling the protestors "slobs" and "another class of person" to their faces then refusing to apologize when prompted by the host. I emailed his office letting then know that his appearance prompted at least one contribution to the protestor's cause. I'll look into your links tomorrow when I plan to donate a little more in senator grothman's name.
― Clay, Thursday, 3 March 2011 09:40 (fourteen years ago)
jesus christ thanks for the updates amateurist
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 3 March 2011 10:40 (fourteen years ago)
good article in the Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/
― brownie, Thursday, 3 March 2011 14:56 (fourteen years ago)
LOL after LOL after LOL here:
Texas has long been a hotbed of controversy on immigration issues. And a proposed immigration bill in the Texas state House is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows. The bill would make hiring an "unauthorized alien" a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine, unless that is, they are hired to do household chores.Yes, under the House Bill 2012 introduced by a tea party favorite, state Rep. Debbie Riddle -- who's been saying for some time that she'd like to see Texas institute an Arizona-style immigration law -- hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law . . . . . . Jon English, Rep. Riddle's chief of staff explained that the exemption was an attempt to avoid "stifling the economic engine" in Texas, which today is, somewhat ironically, celebrating its declaring independence from Mexico in 1836 . . . . . . Rep. Riddle made headlines last year when she claimed unnamed FBI officials had told her that pregnant women from the Middle East were traveling to America as tourists to give birth, and then raising their children to be terrorists who could later enter the U.S. freely as citizens -- so-called "terror babies," a devious offshoot of "anchor babies." She became somewhat infamous on the web when she stumbled repeatedly in a CNN interview about the claims, complaining later that host Anderson Cooper's line of questioning was more intense than she had prepared for."They did not tell me you were going to grill me on specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight," Riddle said when Cooper pressed her for more details. "They did not tell me that, sir."
Yes, under the House Bill 2012 introduced by a tea party favorite, state Rep. Debbie Riddle -- who's been saying for some time that she'd like to see Texas institute an Arizona-style immigration law -- hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law . . .
. . . Jon English, Rep. Riddle's chief of staff explained that the exemption was an attempt to avoid "stifling the economic engine" in Texas, which today is, somewhat ironically, celebrating its declaring independence from Mexico in 1836 . . .
. . . Rep. Riddle made headlines last year when she claimed unnamed FBI officials had told her that pregnant women from the Middle East were traveling to America as tourists to give birth, and then raising their children to be terrorists who could later enter the U.S. freely as citizens -- so-called "terror babies," a devious offshoot of "anchor babies." She became somewhat infamous on the web when she stumbled repeatedly in a CNN interview about the claims, complaining later that host Anderson Cooper's line of questioning was more intense than she had prepared for.
"They did not tell me you were going to grill me on specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight," Riddle said when Cooper pressed her for more details. "They did not tell me that, sir."
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Thursday, 3 March 2011 16:05 (fourteen years ago)
i gots yer updates right here.
lol luv ya man, keep fightin the good fight!
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 16:25 (fourteen years ago)
Good lord these politicians are too stupid to live. How do they dress themselves?
Oh right, their live-in maid does it.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 3 March 2011 16:33 (fourteen years ago)
what's the term for a bubble so think no sense of embarrassment can leak into it?
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:07 (fourteen years ago)
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/03/past_and_present_collide_as_the_black_anti-abortion_movement_grows.html
feministing writer digs into the black pro-life movement and their crazy billboards
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:08 (fourteen years ago)
Larison responds to the Huckabee flap.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:09 (fourteen years ago)
he's been on fire lately, this one was right up my alley
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/03/02/hansons-fantasy/
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)
seems sorta stupid to claim that the black community's anti-abortion rhetoric is anything new (ie, a phenomenon of the last year or two). cuz it's way older than that
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:23 (fourteen years ago)
well ok, but the billboards are new-ish? that's the news peg. plus i feel like i've been seeing waaay more of the "abortion = the REAL racism!!" meme in right-wing chatter, i dunno
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:27 (fourteen years ago)
That was awesome, goole. What's sad about Hanson is that, cultural biases notwithstanding, Carnage and Culture was a pretty good book when it concentrated on descriptions of battle.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
i see a title like that and i just feel like it should be Spears and Ass-Fucking instead.
maybe it's just me
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:42 (fourteen years ago)
i've been seeing waaay more of the "abortion = the REAL racism!!" meme in right-wing chatter, i dunno
right-wing has seen black religious conservatism as a wedge against their Dem loyalties for several years now (Prop 8 in California being a good example)
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:04 (fourteen years ago)
The good people of Orange County, CA turned up to BOO MUSLIM CHILDREN RAISING MONEY FOR A HOMELESS SHELTERhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbMhttp://www.salon.com/news/islam/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/03/orange_county_muslim_protest
― gr8080, Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:12 (fourteen years ago)
Orange County has sucked, sucks now, and will always sucked
I lol'd hard when they went bankrupt in the 80s
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:18 (fourteen years ago)
will always suck
that should say
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:19 (fourteen years ago)
did Orange County always have a congressman who was down with sharing a stage with a woman who says her marine son would "gladly kill these people"?
― gr8080, Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:21 (fourteen years ago)
pretty much
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
B-1 Bob probably would have offered to shoot them himself
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:26 (fourteen years ago)
when "The OC" came out I was like gtfo that place is a shithole
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:27 (fourteen years ago)
(correction - bankruptcy was in '94 - largest municipal bankruptcy in the country's history)
― ridiculous, uncalled for slap (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:28 (fourteen years ago)
GOP presently shooting down all amendments to HR3. Jessica Arons covering it on Twitter. It's a lock to pass the House, has a chance in the Senate. Please support the National Network of Abortion Funds by sponsoring a bowler or a team in the Bowl-a-thon. The future involves funding abortion services at a grassroots level, as legislatively funding and access are being severely restricted.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:31 (fourteen years ago)
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, March 3, 2011 9:04 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark
thank you Amateurist. what's going on in your state is so inspiring I almost can't believe it. there's close to no coverage, so anything you post helps, it's rather bald just how widespread & tacit the news lockout is.
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:52 (fourteen years ago)
unions aren't news though. they're commoners
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 3 March 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe if the Screen Actors Guild got more involved...
― Aimless, Thursday, 3 March 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)
So... Providence fires EVERY SINGLE TEACHER IN TOWN...?
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134209567/providence-mayor-defends-firings-as-teachers-protest
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:42 (fourteen years ago)
Holy shit.
― rendezvous then i'm through with HOOS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:44 (fourteen years ago)
It's amazing that Republicans from coast to coast are all, "Holy shit, we didn't need gays or blacks or Hispanics or any of that, we could have just been scapegoating public school teachers THE WHOLE DAMNED TIME."
― Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
Mayors are threatening mass layoffs, including in New York City and in Providence, R.I., where all 1,926 teachers were told last week they would lose their jobs — a largely symbolic gesture since most will be hired back.
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)
well, sort of. this is a tactic to revise their hiring practices - a bunch of those teachers are going to be rehired in the fall, this is just a way for the city gov't to get around seniority/benefits and trim the working force how they see fit. if only the teacher's had a union o wait...
still totally bad/wrong/disgusting obviously
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
giving even an inch of ground on this shit will be catastrophic in my opinion
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:53 (fourteen years ago)
It's really weird that THIS is the war we're having all of a sudden, I wouldn't have predicted it a couple of months ago.
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 3 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, the Rhode Island thing is some tricky dick shit. There are requirements that fired teachers be given x-month notice, so there's some catch wherein by firing all of them and then rehiring, they've all essentially been served notice, meaning that when it comes time to fire for real there'll be no hold ups.
Shocking how teachers have become the overpaid bad guys here, which goes contrary to the common (sense) view of them as underpaid and overworked.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:02 (fourteen years ago)
The disconnect between "children are our most precious resource AMEN" and "teachers are grasping scum" is really hurting my head
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
according to wingers everybody's overpaid except small business owners, who are more of an invokable trope than anything else
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
I mean the thing is these teachers believe in evolution & a sane reading of history so they're kind of always already the enemy
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:04 (fourteen years ago)
xpost I guess the other GOP meme is "public schools are full of horrible teachers we aren't allowed to get rid of", which does not require them to be seen as overpaid I guess?
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:05 (fourteen years ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:05 (fourteen years ago)
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:08 (fourteen years ago)
"Fight the real enemy!"
according to wingers everybody's overpaid except small business owners
o you guys get this too? it's still a new and refreshing outlook over here tho tbf
― Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:10 (fourteen years ago)
the rightwing has always hated public schooling - religion is banned, evolution and sex ed are taught, it's paid for by taxes, etc.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
remember the whole private school vouchers debate? lol
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:17 (fourteen years ago)
that they can leverage economic angst vs unions has been new to me. just incredible to watch.
― bnw, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:18 (fourteen years ago)
I'm gonna gripe about the White House approach to these wingers:
when the House before dawn had approved those cuts by a party-line vote, the White House remained silent though many of Mr. Obama’s priorities would be slashed.
Frustrated Democratic lawmakers and interest groups have been railing to White House aides that Mr. Obama is forfeiting opportunities to draw the public’s attention to what the Republicans’ cuts would mean for programs popular with most voters, including the coveted independents. The aides respond that the time will come for Mr. Obama to join the attack, should Republicans press their agenda and refuse to compromise.
“One of the lessons of the last two years is that if the president weighs in all the time, it’s less impactful,” Dan Pfeiffer, who remains as the communications director. “But if he weighs in at a moment of his choosing when the public is paying attention, it will be more influential.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/politics/04staff.html?_r=1&hp
'WEIGHS IN ALL THE TIME', he did not weigh in enough on health care and various other things over the last 2 years. I don't get what fantasy world this Pfeiffer is living in. Obama's been waiting too long on domestic issues and letting wingers control and rewrite the agenda.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:21 (fourteen years ago)
I don't get what fantasy world this Pfeiffer is living in
http://www.darrenturpin.me.uk/images/stardust_gervais_pfeiffer.jpg
― Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:23 (fourteen years ago)
THE TIME WILL COME... I'd say Bam needs to get over his fanboys' Moses complex and get his hands dirty, if I actually thought he wanted to.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:24 (fourteen years ago)
I think what the guy means is "when Obama speaks they're extra mean to us, if we keep him quiet they might leave us alone." which: lol
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:26 (fourteen years ago)
Using "impactful" in a sentence = Pfeiffer is my new least favorite person
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:31 (fourteen years ago)
i think he meant 'i'm pactful' as in 'let's talk about this guys'
― Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:32 (fourteen years ago)
Haha, earlier I was contemplating copy+pasting that same paragraph for ridicule. Pfeiffer needs to go. It's not that they lost the battle on healthcare and climate change bill messaging - it's that they never had a coherent message in the first place.
― Z S, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:32 (fourteen years ago)
Also whoever decided that "posture" was a good word to use re: the situations in Egypt and "the region" was a fucking idiot.
ie Gibbs repeatedly saying stuff like "the posture we are adopting is one of support for the peope of..." bla bla bla
Instant toolbag identifier
― Z S, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:34 (fourteen years ago)
I never get tired of posting this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZUaW0HwCM
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
The aides respond that the time will come for Mr. Obama to join the attack, should Republicans press their agenda and refuse to compromise.
I would let y'all know the amount of comfort I take from this except I don't know how to type the microgram symbol on a keyboard :(
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
.
(NOTE: magnified 10000x for clarity)
― rendezvous then i'm through with HOOS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:38 (fourteen years ago)
lol "should"
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:43 (fourteen years ago)
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/03/walker-birth-control-women-health/
Gov. Scott Walker’s budget would repeal a state law requiring insurance companies cover prescription birth control.
Walker’s budget released Tuesday would undo the law signed in 2009 by his Democratic predecessor Gov. Jim Doyle. Passage of the bill, which took effect last year, came after more than a decade of trying by Democrats.
The mandate had been fought by anti-abortion groups and Catholics but supported by Planned Parenthood and public health groups.
Such a repeal would seriously jeopardize a woman’s reproductive health in Wisconsin. American women who aren’t using contraception like birth control represent “one-third of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy and account for 95% of the three million unintended pregnancies that occur every year.” Such pregnancies, in turn, have been linked to “numerous negative maternal and child health outcomes,” including “increased risk of morbidity for women” and delayed prenatal care for the infant. According to the CDC, prescription contraceptives are currently the leading method by which women avoid this danger.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:44 (fourteen years ago)
GOD DAMN IT
― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:47 (fourteen years ago)
how did this guy get elected
― pascal's swagger (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)
Obama?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)
har har
um yeah a lotta dudes are really into their wives' and girlfriends' pills being covered
amirite fellas
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:07 (fourteen years ago)
Ladies, it's condom water balloon time in Wisconsin!
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:08 (fourteen years ago)
argh argh argh
― rendezvous then i'm through with HOOS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:09 (fourteen years ago)
wow dude is just going all in
― gr8080, Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:11 (fourteen years ago)
Wisconsin is pretty evenly split between nice quietly liberal midwest folk and raging fucking lunatic midwest folk.
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:12 (fourteen years ago)
as an aside, does anyone here know anything about education and/or statistics? cos a couple days ago krugman made the point that wisconsin's unionized teachers (and state spending more broadly) put up better outcomes for student achievement than, say, texas' non-union teachers/gov't (if i have that right).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
and now this response from uh "iowahawk" is going around, arguing that TX actually does a little better than WI (on a different metric, grade school tests), but it has more minorites (nb he tries not to be too big a dick about this...) so it looks worse overall.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html
i feel like this is not really apples to apples? but i don't know
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:20 (fourteen years ago)
41 rounds of hollowpoint ammo reportedly found outside of Wisconsin capitol
someone gonna take out some union leaders?
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 March 2011 00:37 (fourteen years ago)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/LittleLamboftheGOP-MichaelCaines.jpg
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 4 March 2011 12:28 (fourteen years ago)
awwwww
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 March 2011 12:29 (fourteen years ago)
Reagan was once a Dem though -- wouldn't he be the false prophet?
― goole, Thursday, 3 March 2011 23:20 (Yesterday) Bookmark
there seems to be some slight of hand, and i think race is a red herring: it's really all about cherrypicking a measure that works for him. he dismisses the SAT/ACT comparisons that the economist makes as basically a measure of whiteness, and then picks a different standardised test as his favourite measure, breaking it down by race. but that's unnecessary, because on the NAEP test, texas does better for all races, so it will have higher scores for the total figure as well. he could have just said, "yeah, but texas does better on NAEP tests".
that wouldn't discredit the measures used by the economist and krugman, however. to do that, he needs to show that any difference in SAT/ACT results and graduation rates is explained by the ethnicity of students, which he just asserts. afaict, wisconsin graduation rates are over 89 per cent, so the gap between that and texas (61.3 per cent) can't be explained by the relatively small difference in the percentage of black students (8.9 per cent versus 11.7 per cent, assuming the student population follows the general population), even if you accept that as a proxy for poverty.
so the question is, why does texas do so much better on the NAEP tests despite failing on other measures? i don't know, and neither does iowahawk. but given that there's no real evidence that any of the measures are more racially biased than the others, i'd say it's fair to choose the ones that really affect students chances in life - high school graduation, college entry exam results - rather than a test intended for policy wonks at the department for education to take the nation's temperature.
(caveat: i'm british, so i may be missing nuances of the US system.)
― joe, Friday, 4 March 2011 13:27 (fourteen years ago)
more broadly, iowahawk wants to defuse an argument about the quality of schools by saying that poverty is the decisive factor. i'm sure krugman would agree. in the very paragraph iowahawk quotes, he says they have among the highest levels of child poverty. krugman's argument isn't specifically about education, it's about whether unions harm future prosperity, aka will no one think of the children? you can't say that the school performance is due to higher levels of poverty without proving his point: wisconsin's wealth has been totally unharmed by its unions, while texas hasn't had any notable advantages from its flexible, go-getting labour market.
― joe, Friday, 4 March 2011 13:49 (fourteen years ago)
http://lyingeyes.blogspot.com/2010/03/sat-gap-widens-while-8th-grade-gap.html
Some other blogger (just found via googling so caveat emptor) on the mystery of NAEP 4th, 8th and 12th grade inschool results for all students not corresponding with SAT results for students who want to go to college.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 March 2011 18:02 (fourteen years ago)
Britain is preparing to send advisers to help anti-Gaddafi forces in eastern Libya, it emerged as Nato commanders were instructed to draw up plans for a wide range of military options, including a no-fly zone.As the situation in Libya was deteriorating rapidly, ambassadors representing Nato's 28 nations tasked military commanders to start planning for what an alliance spokesperson described as "all eventualities".In addition to unarmed advisers deployed to Benghazi and other towns in eastern Libya - where British officials are in touch with a range of opposition figures - the government has placed on alert air, sea, and ground forces that could quickly intervene in the conflict if ordered to do so.Typhoon jets would be deployed to RAF Akrotiri in one of the two sovereign base areas in Cyprus, while 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland - the Black Watch - is on 24 hours' notice to help in evacuation and humanitarian operations, defence officials said.An RAF airborne radar and early warning aircraft is based in Malta where the Ministry of Defence has also set up a forward joint task force headquarters. Officials yesterday declined to say what intelligence they had gathered on the quality and number of pro-Gaddafi aircraft and armour.
As the situation in Libya was deteriorating rapidly, ambassadors representing Nato's 28 nations tasked military commanders to start planning for what an alliance spokesperson described as "all eventualities".
In addition to unarmed advisers deployed to Benghazi and other towns in eastern Libya - where British officials are in touch with a range of opposition figures - the government has placed on alert air, sea, and ground forces that could quickly intervene in the conflict if ordered to do so.
Typhoon jets would be deployed to RAF Akrotiri in one of the two sovereign base areas in Cyprus, while 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland - the Black Watch - is on 24 hours' notice to help in evacuation and humanitarian operations, defence officials said.An RAF airborne radar and early warning aircraft is based in Malta where the Ministry of Defence has also set up a forward joint task force headquarters. Officials yesterday declined to say what intelligence they had gathered on the quality and number of pro-Gaddafi aircraft and armour.
Not so sure this is a good idea, but it does make the british government look slightly daft for decommissioning the carriers.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 4 March 2011 18:26 (fourteen years ago)
wrong thread, sorry
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 4 March 2011 18:27 (fourteen years ago)
interesting stuff on education there guys, thanks.
― goole, Friday, 4 March 2011 19:39 (fourteen years ago)
i think this is a great point
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/washington_is_bad_at_scheming.html
That's the main thing I've learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly carrying out complicated plans. Partisans are very good at recognizing disarray and incompetence on their side of the aisle, but they tend to think the other side is intimidatingly capable and unburdened by scruples or normal human vulnerabilities. And there's so much press interest in Svengali political consultants like Karl Rove or David Plouffe, all of whom get built up in the press as infallible tacticians, that the place just looks a lot more sophisticated than it really is.
But I tend to be shocked at how sophisticated it isn't. Communication between various political actors -- a crucial ingredient in any serious plan -- is surprisingly informal and inadequate. Members of Congress and their staffs don't really have access to secret, efficient networks of information. Instead, they read Roll Call and the Hill and The Washington Post and keep their televisions tuned to cable news, turning up the volume when a colleague involved in a bill they're interested in appears on the screen. Then everyone sits around and speculates about what they just heard. Most every political reporter can back me up when I say that it's extremely common for key players on both sides of the aisle to ask you what you're hearing or how you'd rate the chances of their bill -- and this typically happens when you're sitting down to ask them the very same questions. It's terribly disappointing and, I'm convinced, 100 percent genuine.
― goole, Friday, 4 March 2011 19:40 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nr6Mcua7IM4/TXEYD2UIhPI/AAAAAAAANkQ/4KyxBH8GdTg/s1600/inflatable+palm+trees.jpg
:) :) :) :) (: (: (: (: (: (:
― am0n, Friday, 4 March 2011 20:22 (fourteen years ago)
hahahaha
― gr8080, Friday, 4 March 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)
And there's so much press interest in Svengali political consultants like Karl Rove or David Plouffe
i think that's the reveal in this false equivalence. karl rove really is operating a behind-the-scenes operation funded by humongous libertarian donations, cleared by the citizens united case. when he was in the white house he helped frame historic lies about foreign threats and domestic finances. plouffe just isn't in his league
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly carrying out complicated plans. Partisans are very good at recognizing disarray and incompetence on their side of the aisle, but they tend to think the other side is intimidatingly capable and unburdened by scruples or normal human vulnerabilities.
― gr8080, Friday, 4 March 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
oh I dunno the rightwing is plenty terrified of Obama's "chicago machine"
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:06 (fourteen years ago)
next time those union-busting democrats lie us into war i'll admit how naive i always was
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:18 (fourteen years ago)
can someone tell Sully to stop jizzing in his pants whenever "entitlement reform" gets mentioned?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)
afaict, wisconsin graduation rates are over 89 per cent, so the gap between that and texas (61.3 per cent) can't be explained by the relatively small difference in the percentage of black students (8.9 per cent versus 11.7 per cent, assuming the student population follows the general population), even if you accept that as a proxy for poverty.
Not getting into the stats or whether they mean anything, but this being Texas, you wouldn't explain it by white/black, though, you'd have to bring in the number of Hispanic students for whom English is a second language or are children of parents who primarily speak Spanish.
(Of course, our fuckhead Republicans down here prefer to just strip ESL classes of funding and demonize any child of immigrants who has trouble with English, rather than pursue programs that might actually help them and test numbers.)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4537&menu_id=814http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/
Around 20% of the total student population are in bilingual or ESL programs.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:26 (fourteen years ago)
x-post- Soto, do you really think your fave "contrarian conservative columnist Sully" would not get excited about 'entitlement reform'? Folks like him and moderate Dems just eat that stuff up because it seems so logical and non-partisan to them (especially since the media won't pay any attention to the "liberal" views like that plan offered by that Democrat rep to the Simpson commission that recognized that you don't have to go after the middle class and the poor on entitlements. I keep getting annoying e-mails from my Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner about the ridiculous group of 6 workgroup he's on that is taking an 'adult approach' on 'entitlement reform.' "Adult" always means cut taxes for the rich.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
only babies like poor people
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
If poor people weren't so spoiled by unions and stuff they could get tax cuts like the people who work hard and have earned their fortunes. They need some tough love via entitlement reform. Moderate Dem millionaire Mark Warner has convinced himself that he's non-partisan and logical on this and he gets excited by entitlement reform. Ugh.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 March 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
that Gabbneb jizzed in his pants over Mark Warner = all you need to know about Mark Warner.
― don't forget soda ... BITCH (Eisbaer), Friday, 4 March 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
I voted for him because in Virginia that may be the best we can get. I wonder if he ever saw the AJ Dionne Washington Post article condemning his bipartisanship group's stance? If he did, he probably dismissed it as cliched liberalism. Plus he probably also thinks that the steps he is taking are pragmatic in a blue-dog way that will help him get re-elected. Maybe he thinks he has to do this to win over independents.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 March 2011 22:17 (fourteen years ago)
But I tend to be shocked at how sophisticated it isn't.
Really? After being a reporter for how long?? And politicians ask you what you're hearing on the street, you say? My word, it's almost as if you're a player in the game, just like they are!
It's terribly disappointing
Good god.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 4 March 2011 22:23 (fourteen years ago)
It's like he really DOES want the politicians to be the nobility at Versailles. He's pissed that he can't just dutifully accept the scraps of his masters! He has to actually get in there among the elbows and farts of error-prone humans! It makes journalism so dreadfully tiring.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 4 March 2011 22:25 (fourteen years ago)
x-post- Soto, do you really think your fave "contrarian conservative columnist Sully" would not get excited about 'entitlement reform'? Folks like him and moderate Dems just eat that stuff up
Oh I know. It's Friday. I lacked convenient targets on my late afternoon blackboard.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 5 March 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
So.. official unemployment dropped by... .1% and this is supposed to be cause for celebration? Sheesh.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 5 March 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
dudes, there is SO MUCH bad shit in walker's budget and budget repair bills. 80% of which doesn't have anything to do w/ the budget.
the good news is that pretty much every poll shows that walker has fucked himself over here. his ratings are dropping dramatically, and except for in ohio other state gov'ts have dropped plans to do anything like what walker has tried to do. also polls show that teachers, not surprisingly, have very favorable ratings among people--recent poll had them at something like 77% approval rating.
we could very well lose the battle, which is actually worse than some are making out, because the budget repair bill wouldn't just "curtail collective bargaining"--it would basically destroy public-sector unions: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_00aaf0ec-460e-11e0-9a32-001cc4c03286.html
so by the time we elect a new governor we may not have many unions in this state to stand up for.
― by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 5 March 2011 03:19 (fourteen years ago)
The next defense secretary will have to grapple with two wars and brisk budget-cutting battles that for the first time promise to involve the Pentagon. It is a military that has been at war for a remarkable 10 years, and with an all-volunteer force. For these and other reasons it is in the middle of a number of profound debates, including how technology is changing the very nature of war.
a paragraph from NYT article
it's not hard to understand why no one realizes that more than half of our military force is made up of contractors. jon stewart was otm the other night when he said that if we weren't so reliant on contractors in the military, we would need a draft, and if we had a draft, we wouldn't be in afghanistan and iraq.
― Z S, Saturday, 5 March 2011 04:12 (fourteen years ago)
Tracer what the fuck
― goole, Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:05 (fourteen years ago)
that's not the point of that article at all. congress IS like versailles, they don't talk to each other!
are you for real
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:38 (fourteen years ago)
"more people have jobs, how can that be good news"
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
Probably works better if you substitute "small relief" for "celebration".
― Aimless, Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:41 (fourteen years ago)
Keep fighting the good fight, Amst. I am behind you 100%. Regardless of what happens, these Wisconsin protests have been the best thing to happen in this country since . . . I want to say Obama's election, but looking back, can't really.
― Virginia Plain, Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:51 (fourteen years ago)
Really? After being a reporter for how long??
in fairness to him, after being a reporter for maybe 4 years? he's really young
― daria-g, Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:57 (fourteen years ago)
/So.. official unemployment dropped by... .1% and this is supposed to be cause for celebration? Sheesh./are you for real
yeah this confused me too.
if like 5% unemployment is considered "ok-ish" and 9% is not great then a diff of 1% is pretty considerable.
― ullr saves (gbx), Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:02 (fourteen years ago)
oops you said .1%.
still, improvement is improvement imo
― ullr saves (gbx), Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
Would have helped to have written it 0.1%.
― Aimless, Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
I also read it as 1%
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
putting it after an ellipsis didn't help
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
</typicalamericanblamingothersforhismistake>
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:09 (fourteen years ago)
I read that as blamin gothers
― iatee, Saturday, 5 March 2011 19:14 (fourteen years ago)
suggest renaming GOP as 'deficit gothers'
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Saturday, 5 March 2011 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
hasn't goth suffered enough?
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 20:01 (fourteen years ago)
Deficit gophers?
― anna sui generis (suzy), Saturday, 5 March 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)
Trick question! Goth thrives on suffering.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Saturday, 5 March 2011 20:06 (fourteen years ago)
so does capitalism
― blue cake (display name version) (crüt), Saturday, 5 March 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)
George F. Will, back in contrarian mode. No doubt lots of liberals will cite this one.
Republicans should understand that when self-described conservatives such as Malzberg voice question-rants like the one above and Republicans do not recoil from them, the conservative party is indirectly injured. As it is directly when Newt Gingrich, who seems to be theatrically tiptoeing toward a presidential candidacy, speculates about Obama having a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mentality.
A magazine article containing what Gingrich calls a "stunning insight" is "the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama." Gingrich begins with a faux question: "What if he is so outside our comprehension" that he can be understood "only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior?" Then Gingrich says this is not just a question, it is "the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
To the notion that Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama's natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America's academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson. A question for former history professor Gingrich: Why implicate Kenya?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 5 March 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
man of action
http://i.imgur.com/atc4g.jpg
― bnw, Sunday, 6 March 2011 00:15 (fourteen years ago)
i picture george will LITERALLY writing from a glass bubble sitting out in a field of magnolias somewhere.
― by another name (amateurist), Sunday, 6 March 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
I have to admit, I'm a fan--I don't think you have to agree with his politics to find him funny and entertaining. He turns wryly smug condescension about everything around him into an art form, and Donaldson's bluster used to be the perfect foil for him. I probably like him for the same reason I like reading John Simon. He's repetitive, yes--so am I--and he's at his worst when he tries to be anything other than what he is. During the 2008 campaign, I remember him getting on Obama about elitism--maybe it was over the guns-and-religion nonsense. It was like Charlie Sheen chastizing somebody over his emotional instability.
― clemenza, Sunday, 6 March 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)
He likes whoever buys him food. Remember: Obama went to his house in January '09 for lamb chops.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2011 04:14 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, 0.1% change in unemployment sounds like a fucking rounding error to me. I bet McDonalds did some hiring now that they're serving 'oatmeal.'
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 6 March 2011 06:30 (fourteen years ago)
even George Will's book about baseball sucked.
I always think of that SNL skit where Dana Carvey as George Will hosts a baseball trivia game show that ends with the audience and contestants whipping baseballs at him.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Sunday, 6 March 2011 06:38 (fourteen years ago)
I thought Will was okay in the first Ken Burns installment--not the best talking-head, but not the worst. I have a couple of his baseball books, but don't remember ever reading them.
― clemenza, Sunday, 6 March 2011 07:38 (fourteen years ago)
he's a good talking head on ESPN Sportscentury specials too.
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 6 March 2011 08:48 (fourteen years ago)
mike moore shows up in madison, argues "america is not broke"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw"400 americans have more wealth than half of all americans combined"
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 6 March 2011 14:54 (fourteen years ago)
oh GREAT.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:07 (fourteen years ago)
now comes this clown to dilute the righteousness of their cause.
alfred, have you ever been to madison?
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:24 (fourteen years ago)
A better question: what ballast can Moore give the demonstrators that they haven't earned themselves already?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:26 (fourteen years ago)
i asked because i found out about moore's appearance from a teacher who's been protesting, and was bummed the one day she sat out, he showed up. they have a lot of affection for him there, no matter how his reputation might stand in other areas of the country. the ballast he provides is they're tired and weary and feel like they're being ignored, so when a midwest folk hero flies to address them, it's a pep rally
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:27 (fourteen years ago)
Fair enough.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:32 (fourteen years ago)
i wasn't trying to pick a fight with you or anything. no doubt there's lots of reasons to call him a clown. this particular gesture of his though sits well with the protesters, from what i'm hearing, that's all
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:37 (fourteen years ago)
also if this devestating truth bomb is in fact a truthful bomb then it's kinda nice that someone said it:
"400 americans have more wealth than half of all americans combined"
the left not usually this good with bumper-slogan length definitions of key inequities, etc
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:43 (fourteen years ago)
BREAKING NEWS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHrSeD4A4iA
― Z S, Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:59 (fourteen years ago)
sounds logical
― Partisan Cheese Hostel (latebloomer), Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:01 (fourteen years ago)
she's a lawyer. actually, she's the lawyer for the westboro baptist church that are such lil' sweethearts
― Z S, Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:03 (fourteen years ago)
What took them so long?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:04 (fourteen years ago)
amazed you guys avoided the obvious M Moore/ballast jokes
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:35 (fourteen years ago)
Pretty simple: people here are working hard to keep national attention on the fight here, which is far from over but which has already dropped off the NYT front page, CNN, etc. Nationally famous people showing up at the rallies means it's working means we're happy.
Also: "Michael Moore is a clown" is very inside-baseball, no? I mean, I feel like I'm reasonably inside baseball and I'm not even sure what it means. I think most people, like me, have seen 0-2 of his movies and know about him little more than that he's a famous guy whose professional identity is "stick up for the working class." In fact, he might be the ONLY SUCH famous guy. So yeah, people were pleased to see him.
Also, George Will is indefensible.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:45 (fourteen years ago)
^cosigning this post
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:50 (fourteen years ago)
in fact, he might be the ONLY SUCH famous guy.meanwhile the right has a bajillion rabble-rousers to rile up their base, and turn out the vote
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:52 (fourteen years ago)
If you don't like him, true. If you do, no.
― clemenza, Sunday, 6 March 2011 16:54 (fourteen years ago)
I had a friend go up to Madison over the weekend with a union organizer pal, and I admit I'm torn. On one hand, I appreciate folks going up there to support them, to keep this in the news, etc. (as much as it's in the news). On the other hand, I don't like it when Republicans/right-wingers importer protestors from out of state, and I don't want to be hypocritical. It's a different state where my vote/voice has no real power, as much as I may disdain what the Gov. is doing. :/
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
In my view, this is a national issue which happens to have blown up here first, and I have no objection to people (on either side) coming here from out of state.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:10 (fourteen years ago)
On the other hand, I don't like it when Republicans/right-wingers importer protestors from out of state
isn't the issue with imported republican protestors generally that they are mercenary-style corporate pawns, rather than legitimately concerned out-of-state citizens? i think one can still be concerned, whether or not you live in the state boundary. look at the civil rights movement.
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:19 (fourteen years ago)
Look at the concerned citizen knuckleheads that went to Manhattan to protest the non-mosque.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)
isn't the issue with imported republican protestors generally that they are mercenary-style corporate pawns, rather than legitimately concerned out-of-state citizens?
has evidence come to light that there've been 'protestors' PAID by astroturf groups? as i've understood it they've been bussed in actual-concerned-citizens whose trips were organized & paid for by koch et al, if it's true those folks were actually ~employed~ we're talking a diff ball game
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:28 (fourteen years ago)
ha yeah pretty sure that charge could be levied at either side, it's a pretty silly concern to have tbh
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
i mean what i'm saying is
unless you're coming from evidence i haven't seen this is a hilarious sentence tbh
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
yeah but - that it had nothing to do them as they weren't new yorkers was secondary to it being generally wrong-headed and reactionary. like i know it's correct that decisions should be wrestled out amongst people who are directly affected, but i don't think it's beyond the limits of people elsewhere to be vouching for the morals of the thing. kinda also think that comparing 'the famous' to standard, ballot-bearing locals is weird; their power isn't tied to their catchment area, they can bring publicity, etc. that a person in a position of power is able to argue for the bottom-line of union representation seems more significant than that his particular state's union coverage is okay.
if it's true those folks were actually ~employed~ we're talking a diff ball game
actually i have no idea & am maybe on shaky ground here. maybe it is that they were concerned citizens, in which case yeah i guess i am okay with situations in which they bus in. and just have objections to the bit where they're missing the point.
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:45 (fourteen years ago)
yeah sorry maybe i'm mixed up there. i'd thought that was the concern, maybe it wasn't.
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:46 (fourteen years ago)
The NYC mosque thing, though, was part of a national 9/11 narrative. I can understand people being outraged, imported or not, because the attack on NYC was an attack on us, blah blah. But union protestors in Wisconsin? That's as provincial as it gets. It's a democratically elected government I disagree with in another state. I can't vote there. Its policies don't affect me. And as much as this has been built into a national story, it really is a local battle (as it is in Ohio and Indiana, so far). I had no problem donating money to the unions up there. But feet on the ground really should be local feet on the ground for the protest to carry any real weight, I think. If the issues at hand in WI can't generate outrage at the local level, it's weird to import outrage. But maybe that makes me a protest purist.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 18:50 (fourteen years ago)
xp yeah pretty sure there are prob as many brainless lefty populists as there are tea partiers or whatever
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Sunday, 6 March 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)
xp dude the union battles going on over the country show that wisconsin is every bit as national an issue as the 9/11 mosque was - what you're worried abt is completely not an issue, just root for the good guys
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Sunday, 6 March 2011 19:02 (fourteen years ago)
And as much as this has been built into a national story, it really is a local battle (as it is in Ohio and Indiana, so far).
If some large fraction of the GOP governors try to push through similar laws in their own states, will it be 30 separate local battles, not a national story?
But feet on the ground really should be local feet on the ground for the protest to carry any real weight, I think. If the issues at hand in WI can't generate outrage at the local level, it's weird to import outrage.
But that's a weird "if," sincethere ARE in fact tens of thousands of outraged Wisconsinites trudging around the square. I don't think a few dudes -- or even more than a few dudes -- riding the Van Galder up from Chicago have a chance of diluting the basically local nature of the protest.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, 6 March 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
The very fact that this sort of Wisconsin thing is happening all over is almost exactly why I don't see the point of going there to protest, tbh. What about arts funding? What about after school programs? What about health insurance? What about pension plans and retirement benefits? There are any number of things on the chopping block, both locally and federally. All states are facing the exact same budget problems right now. I think the biggest difference here is that Walker is such a conspicuous dick and therefore makes for a very attractive target.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 21:39 (fourteen years ago)
union battles going on over the country show that wisconsin is every bit as national an issue as the 9/11 mosque was - what you're worried abt is completely not an issue, just root for the good guys
otm. solidarity is actually really important here - the bad guys in Wisconsin won't be limiting their response to local resources
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 6 March 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
For sure solidarity is important and commendable. But is Wisconsin a national issue in Ohio or Indiana, which are facing down the same Republican shenanigans? Are there folks is New Jersey dealing with Christie particularly focused on Wisconsin? This is not one of those where Wisconsin goes, America follows situations. It's just one of many, many similar battles being played out coast to coast. So support is key, but being present there on the ground seems kind of arbitrary to me.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
I think one big win anywhere will set the tone for what follows, and that win will be heavily symbolic.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 6 March 2011 22:02 (fourteen years ago)
There are any number of things on the chopping block, both locally and federally. All states are facing the exact same budget problems right now.
But they're not exactly the same. Wisconsin is actually in pretty good shape. There's a deficit but it's not that much, and refinancing debt would've covered it, but the gov is using this catchall, generic "we're broke and we need to make cuts" argument to push through all sorts of draconian cuts to social programs and education.
― daria-g, Sunday, 6 March 2011 22:06 (fourteen years ago)
But every Republican lead state and even some of the Dem states facing budget crises, real or imagined, are using said crisis and the supposed Republican "mandate" to go nuts. At the Federal level, too. I mean, the fact that Walker more or less invented this crisis is almost moot. I'm not arguing that WI isn't important. The point is that this sort of thing is going on everywhere right now. I was asking what makes WI more important. Frankly, I really don't think Walker backing down in WI will have any impact on the debate in other states.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 22:17 (fourteen years ago)
(As much as I'd like to see him lose this fight!)
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 6 March 2011 22:18 (fourteen years ago)
xxp i really disagree - i totally get what you're saying that there are other issues, maybe others more pressing on a personal level certainly - but making as good of a showing as possible in wisconsin is incredibly important, i think, in shaping national attitudes toward and discourse regarding workers' rights. winning this one is important
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Sunday, 6 March 2011 22:21 (fourteen years ago)
Frankly, I really don't think Walker backing down in WI will have any impact on the debate in other states.
This is a mystifying position to me - the whole way the right-wing noise machine works is, one small decision in its favor = loudly declare victory through all press organs 24 hours a day, control the narrative from there. A win in Wisconsin will be all the difference in the world to workers in other states and to labor in general. In my view Wisconsin is literally the most important thing on labor's plate; if they lose, everything will be much, much harder for a long, long time.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
it's the whole 'best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity' tragic binary. the right lies, but the left has to be reasonable to a fault. why? why not fight fire with fire? there were tea parties all over the country once obama took office, and then the democrats got destroyed in the november 2010 midterms. left-leaning folks should be thrilled about these rallies and that people are punking scott walker and those koch dickheads, not poo-pooing their efforts
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 7 March 2011 00:43 (fourteen years ago)
In my view Wisconsin is literally the most important thing on labor's plate; if they lose, everything will be much, much harder for a long, long time.
It's gonna be so hard to win the battle in Wisconsin. The Republican have the majority in both houses there, and the right-wing noise machine is working hard on spinning for Walker.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 March 2011 00:50 (fourteen years ago)
The Wisconsin public disagrees with Walker.
Not that it matters.
sadface.jpg
― Z S, Monday, 7 March 2011 00:51 (fourteen years ago)
Republicans win through steamroller politics. If Walker loses, they'll just steamroll forward. Then even if he gets recalled, let alone loses reelection, they'll still have inertia on their side. See: Bush tax cuts, which made no sense on any level but which got OKd again because the Republicans kept pushing the same dishonest narrative that they were good for us. I'm not trying to be contentious when I ask how Walker losing this fight will reverse likeminded inertia in other states. Build opposition morale, absolutely, and that does matter. But just as Walker appears resistant to all the negative polls and protests, so will other governors and local governments persevere. If they have to rig the game (kicking labor sympathetic Republicans out of their respective caucuses, say, or holding shady midnight votes), so be it. They're very, very good at pushing bad ideas through, while the Dems are very bad at reversing them. They know this.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 00:52 (fourteen years ago)
It should also be noted that anti-union trends have maintained momentum for at least a couple of generations. Wisconsin potentially isn't the beginning of something, it's the end of a particularly insidious long steamroll.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 00:55 (fourteen years ago)
why bother at all?
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 7 March 2011 01:08 (fourteen years ago)
yes, that's right; and that's why putting absolutely everything into a fight that actually seems to stand a chance is so vital.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 01:21 (fourteen years ago)
I do not understand thinking that Wisconsin is only a local issue. It's the sort of grassroots organizing & mobilization at the heart of democracy...the exercise of which our nation obviously needs.
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 01:58 (fourteen years ago)
The Republican roll-back strategy shared by a bunch of state governments is a national trend, a bad one. But Wisconsin itself is ... Wisconsin. The union neutering could fail there and succeed elsewhere, and vice versa. It's not like it's exactly driving the anti-union movement. Indeed, Mitch Daniels already did unilaterally what Walker is trying to do within days of getting into office, back in 2005. Now, I totally agree that showing solidarity and protest in general is vital for our democracy. But I don't see this one battle as anything other than one battle. But that doesn't make it a matter of "so why bother?" Quite the opposite. So many of the essential systems we've come to take for granted are under assault at every level, in every state, on the local and national level, that it's imperative that we organize, protest, fight and, most importantly, vote (though alas, that last part is where Americans fail, time and again). Which is maybe why I'm able to rationalize Wisconsin as just one part of a bigger picture, a battle that shouldn't be characterized as any more important as many of the similar battles good people are fighting across America.
(waves flag)
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 02:21 (fourteen years ago)
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)
Josh & Co, I feel you guys are off the mark here. Its like anytime there's a fight, there's this neg crew always out in force declaring how the battle is obviously lost already for the liberals and how it doesn't matter anyway and all this sour grapes shit. like -- why even follow politics if you don't actually think politics can work? IDGI. Wisconsin is important. Getting Walker in the dunk tank nationwide is an easy as pie goal and its like you'd rather take the steamrolling than stand your ground. Y'all are dogs being wagged by the tail IMO, and have some kind of weird GOP demon inside your head telling you your message "won't play to middle america" or some nonsense.
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Monday, 7 March 2011 04:39 (fourteen years ago)
But I don't see this one battle as anything other than one battle.
But, I mean, consider the word "battle" - it's a good word for these things. Long struggles are made up of many battles; after enough consecutive wins or losses, one side or the other has to stand down, regroup, concede, etc. This one - in part because often when union-busting takes place at the business level, there's now insufficient organization to fight back - seems like a big battle: because so many were affected; because they're teachers, which throws the wrongness of the anti-union forces into relief; because they're fighting so hard. So, if it's "one battle," sure. But there are skirmishes on battlefields people don't remember and then there are big battles that get studied in history class later. I don't say "this is certainly an historic battle!" but it is sort of current-historical moment, anyway.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 04:48 (fourteen years ago)
x-post But Walker is not being driven by support; his poll numbers are terrible. He is driven entirely by agenda. Just as Bush didn't care what people thought of his policies, Walker doesn't give a damn. He's all but guaranteed to lose reelection next time around, assuming he doesn't get whacked before then. He knows this. Which is in many ways why he'll just keep stubbornly plug away at the Republican agenda.
Per the battle metaphor, I do think Wisconsin is a minor battle (even if the union issue in general is bigger than that). But I also think the Democrats have been steadily losing the war for decades (alas). We still live, inexplicably, in Reagan's America, and until the population at large gets more educated about and involved in politics (unlikely), real progress will be tough to achieve. I mean, Obama - Obama! - was successfully painted as a Socialist radical. If that's the "radical," progressive standard, I'm not hopeful. Sometimes I feel like the left in America is just barely hanging on, and it'll take more than labor unrest in Wisconsin to rouse them. In fact, I'm not sure what will at this point, aside from a charismatic, galvanizing presidential candidate every few election cycles. Cynical? Perhaps. But to be honest I'm happy each day for what little part of the dialogue the left even has in America.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 13:52 (fourteen years ago)
The left in America doesn't actually exist anymore, from what I can tell.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 14:04 (fourteen years ago)
the left left
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Monday, 7 March 2011 14:09 (fourteen years ago)
DJP otm, there is no left. There's the less-aggressively-right. They are heroes
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 14:20 (fourteen years ago)
xxxxxxxpost
maybe michael moore was basing his message on 'forbes'?
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 7 March 2011 14:37 (fourteen years ago)
'the left' is defined by a country's political culture - america's is pretty right-leaning from a global perspective. that doesn't mean we don't have a 'left' anymore than european countries don't have a 'right' if their right-wing pols are more liberal than the dems.
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
well no, the point is that if the people who would define the left can't even be bothered to back their side of the argument, then they effectively don't exist
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:09 (fourteen years ago)
who the hell is showing up at these protests if not 'the left'
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 15:10 (fourteen years ago)
talking about ppl here, specifically Josh In Chicago
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:11 (fourteen years ago)
I totally back the protestors! I donated money last week. I want them to persevere and win. But I harbor no illusions. We live in a country where some not small minority still believes the president is a secret socialist Muslim. It'd be a problem if it were 10%, or even 5% or less. But we're talking, what, 30%+? That's some up is down shit, contrary to all evidence. That's the country we live in. Unions are absolutely vital to our modern way of life, I think, and a win in Wisconsin would be great for the soul. But the bigger battle for America is not looking good.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 15:28 (fourteen years ago)
One thing that can happen when ground gets conceded on things like "late term abortion" is that non-viable pregnancies must be carried to term: a nightmare. So sad for the state of play on this stuff.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:30 (fourteen years ago)
I totally agree. But that's a constitutional issue, like civil rights, where our collective national voice explicitly matters. The unions, though, are a local, state by state issue, at least as these conflicts are playing out.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 15:36 (fourteen years ago)
a charismatic, galvanizing presidential candidate every few election cycles.
who gets elected and does what?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:47 (fourteen years ago)
(Josh I wasn't actually trying to link the one to the other, was just posting a related-to-politics story - sorry to be unclear)
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:51 (fourteen years ago)
I do wish the left would get some kind of game face on and not try to *reason* with the right. Dumb earnest lefties, thinking wingnuts listen to reason.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:54 (fourteen years ago)
^co-sign
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:57 (fourteen years ago)
fwiw there's a new poll in France that says if a presidential election were held there today, Marie Le Pen would win. Marie Le Pen is pretty much analogous to David Duke.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:58 (fourteen years ago)
But I do think everybody who cares about reproductive rights & abortion politics in any way should read that story, and the Des Moines Register story it links to. And hear the parents bravely tell their story. All these fetal-heartbeat bills & "no abortion past x-number-of-weeks except for the life of the mother" restrictions are cruel, inhuman, indefensible and should be opposed and resisted and answered with the true stories of people who have lived with the need for abortion and come up against the anti-choice movement's fantasy-world laws.
The Register video is here - it's eleven minutes and is vital, vital viewing in my opinion. Just people talking, no graphic images, but wrenching, hard, true stuff.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110306/NEWS10/103060331/1001/
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 15:58 (fourteen years ago)
What's happening to abortion rights on a local level is a travesty. Everything from required ultra-sounds to worse. And this is regarding a right Americans overwhelmingly support! It just goes to show how deep the disconnect is between our personal beliefs and the idiots we elect. It's like the medicare recipients who protested the health care bill. Sad, frustrating, almost classically tragic, but that's our reality.
Thankfully Roe v. Wade is in place to at least provide a clear precedent for how these things should ultimately be decided, whether or not the laws all follow in lockstep. If there's one thing I have faith in, it's that Obama will not leave office with the court any farther right leaning than it is now, and ideally may tilt it a tad farther the other way.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 16:15 (fourteen years ago)
wouldn't be so sure - we already traded stevens for kagan and if ginsburg retires in his second term hopefully he won't pick some schmuck like merrick garland
obv he'll never pick someone who outright opposed roe
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 7 March 2011 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
so once this thing passes in WI (which I'm sure it will) is there anyway to undo it...? Is there any kind of precedent for restoring collective bargaining once it's been eliminated?
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 16:47 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe have a vote?
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 16:58 (fourteen years ago)
I'm just wondering if its ever been done before.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 17:00 (fourteen years ago)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/07/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-from-birther-advocate/?hpt=T2
you know, birthers have gone straight through "pissing me off" and "tragically unstable" and ended up firmly in the "exist solely to be mocked endlessly" pile
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
I could revive an abortion rights thread if people would prefer, not trying to hijack politics thread with abortion rights stuff, it's just that a lot of what's going on politically right now is wishlist-for-antichoice people stuff. Here's Arkansas trying to outlaw abortion after twenty weeks.
http://www.examiner.com/government-in-little-rock/controversial-abortion-restriction-law-introduced-arkansas-legislature
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 17:07 (fourteen years ago)
Aren't some Wisconsin Dems trying to get enough names on petitions to recall their legislative representatives? I don't know whether that's fantasy stuff or not, but some Liberal outfit sent me an e-mail about it noting that certain Republicans had been elected by only a few hundred votes.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 March 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)
yes a recall effort is underway, I'm just looking down the road - say the Republican legislature/gov get thrown out within a couple years, even if that does happen, what are the actual prospects of reinstating collective bargaining?
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 17:13 (fourteen years ago)
The WI gov I think needs to serve a minimum of a year before he can be recalled, so he's sticking around for a while. A few of those reps could maybe get recalled, but by then the damage will have been done. Honestly, I don't see why a Dem majority legislature couldn't introduce a law to reinstate collective bargaining rights, but we all know how good Dem majorities are at dealing with obstinate minorities.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
yeah basically my fear is that the WI Dems use this as a political wedge to reclaim the majority and then do nothing with it
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 17:36 (fourteen years ago)
Walker's "numbers" are pretty awful now, according to several polls. It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems missed the chance to reclaim The Higher Ground.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 17:39 (fourteen years ago)
The left exists, but they have no effective organization to get their voice into the mainstream debate. This keeps the left fragmented since there is no clear message to rally behind. The right wing dominates the media so completely that they are able to make it appear that the left is whatever strawman they are beating up on atm. This has diminished the left's strength to the point where they can't make any real progress against the conservative headwind.
My advice: don't give up. Learn to exploit the cracks in the media wall. Recognize the need to rally behind a simple, unified message, even if it isn't about your pet cause. Organize as much as you can.
― Aimless, Monday, 7 March 2011 18:32 (fourteen years ago)
Recognize the need to rally behind a simple, unified message, even if it isn't about your pet cause.
I would like to tattoo this on everyone I know
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
I still think Tax the Shit Outta Rich People works.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 March 2011 18:34 (fourteen years ago)
... framed as: Let's Return to the Eisenhauer Era!
― Aimless, Monday, 7 March 2011 18:38 (fourteen years ago)
^^^^ bipartisan appeal
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 18:41 (fourteen years ago)
re. leftism today, I want to blame the New Left, but my intellectual posture is to want to have actual defenders of that breed of leftism to argue against---guessing what with ILX's love of the Frankfurt School I'll find such people here.
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 18:42 (fourteen years ago)
aimless otm
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
+ various structural factors allow the 'the left's vote to be underrepresented in just about every level of government
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
I blame these guys for giving up too early:http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ppi6g5ntL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
the dreamer's disease
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)
What simple, unified message could the Democratic party put forth that people wouldn't be able to say "you guys don't actually believe that stuff, though, your record indicates that you don't" about? Not trying to be argumentative, honest honest, just saying, like...on stuff I'd put a little higher than "pet cause" (torture, indefinite detention without charge) thing have seemed pretty "whatever else you say or accomplish this is grotesque" for a while now
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
yeah but that goes for the GOP's slogans too! That's the whole point of slogans: they collapse under scrutiny.
How many times have you argued with a Republican about Reagan's raising taxes FIVE TIMES in eight years yet this person still believes Reagan was a tax cutter and a kick-ass president?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)
exactly. I have no problem w/ us lying and spouting bullshit, we just need to do it more productively.
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:19 (fourteen years ago)
That's kind of missing a point, though...?
Like, whoopee if the Democrats become better propagandaists, but who are you supposed to turn to if you actually care about the torture issue?
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)
Well, I said nothing about spouting bullshit (Reagan DID cut taxes in '81, after all).
I've given up explaining the illegality and immorality of torture because most well-meaning people, confusing revenge for justice, would inflict it themselves under extraordinary circumstances.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:24 (fourteen years ago)
besides, most Democratic legislators have no problem with waterboarding and rendition.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:25 (fourteen years ago)
you turn to the anti-torture propagandists!
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:26 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.napacabs.com/Assets/ProductImages/jack_daniels.jpg
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:28 (fourteen years ago)
To me, organizing means putting together voting blocs that can be delivered, then getting a quid pro quo for delivering them. If you back a candidate on the understanding of a payback on your issues and you get stiffed on the payback, then you make sure to groom a candidate to challenge the bastard who stiffed you. This may all take place within the confines of the Democratic party, but it isn't a matter of just falling in line behind that party. You have an agenda and you back it up with voting power. That's how the game is played.
― Aimless, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:29 (fourteen years ago)
I am not being entirely serious but as long as the media operates the way it does today I'm not how far we're gonna get on message until we start screaming into the camera
anyway the simple, unified, politically popular message is 'tax rich people'
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:31 (fourteen years ago)
Future historians will long puzzle over how I was given an international platform to freely pontificate on the Arab people and be remunerated handsomely for it. It is true that I am not the only person in the world who formulates dubious theories based on scant or no evidence which I then harangue people with. Other people do it. They are called taxi drivers. But they are not as rich as me and haven’t been awarded three Pulitizer Prizes.
More Friedman lolz: http://inanities.org/2011/03/this-is-just-the-start-and-it-never-fucking-ends/
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:32 (fourteen years ago)
Well congratulations, you've just diluted the messaging of the Democratic Party.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:32 (fourteen years ago)
how do you dilute water
― iatee, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)
add salt
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:37 (fourteen years ago)
lol someone actually posted "add rubbing alcohol" as an answer to that question
I love the internet
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:38 (fourteen years ago)
I am loving Michael Moore's speech at Wisconsin. It is even worth watching the video, it's on the electric side.
The one comment I'd make on it, is that when he describes how there was no revolt in the wake of September 2008, and there's been no revolt... Until Now; well I agree with him that this is the first actual, truly spontaneous revolt. But that's the tricky thing about the Tea Party; it is a movement with a funded infrastructure that is carefully diverting all criticism of corporate activity towards a demonization of the current government, but in the wake of electing a hopeless moderate to the presidency, the Tea Party was the only visible outlet for the justifiable amounts of rage many people felt after September 2008. And while the media does not hesitate to show us the ugliest, most transparently racist aspects of the Tea Party protests, it never shows us how often the signs stray from that infrastructured message -- there is just as much rage being directed at Wall Street as there is at Obama.
Which is why Moore's speech would have been a slam dunk with the slightest bit of Tea Party outreach, because I don't think it's naive to see a lot of the energy coming from the Tea Partiers as a genuinely radical force. The point's been made that the Tea Party is largely populated by the Boomers, although precisely the ones who were alienated from the developments of the sixties -- it is the exact same generation, but now entering its final decades. Most of them are too entrenched to have their minds changed, but I don't like thinking of them as opponents and they are the exact people I most hope see this speech by Moore
― Milton Parker, Monday, 7 March 2011 19:40 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-is-not-broke
misread that and was hoping michael moore led protestors in the electric slide
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:43 (fourteen years ago)
Libs need their own Reagan. Since you're probably never going to get Springsteen to run for office...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/from-no-1-fan-to-criticinchief-damon-takes-aim-at-obama-2233622.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 March 2011 19:52 (fourteen years ago)
Well, we saw with Obama the power of a galvanized, (more or less) unified base. The problem was two-fold: once he got elected, people stopped working on his behalf, out of ... emotional exhaustion, maybe? And then, without the base prodding him on, things went sour c. HCR. By the time the base perked up again, the damage had been done. The far left started to turn on him. The Republicans flanked farther to the Tea Party right and proved once again that it's a lot easier to destroy than create, to turn things back than moves things forward.
But to go back to HCR, I think that was clearly an example of Obama dropping the ball and stunting inertia. He said he was leaving the debate to congress, and in our euphoria we supported him. Then for lots of reasons, he lost control of that battle and, in turn, a hunk of the trust of the left, the same activist left that helped organize and get him elected (moderates not being particularly well known for mobilizing). So how does Obama win back the support of the left? One way could be by, you know, asking. Another is by emphatically delivering. Showmanship counts for something. Letting DADT or DOMA sort of evaporate wasn't nearly as dramatic as declaring "look what I did!" God knows Clinton would have been first in line to claim credit, but that's what we get for electing a relatively modest commander in chief.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:08 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/07/us-guantanamo-idUSTRE7265KL20110307
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
So how does Obama win back the support of the left? ^^^ not like this
The problem was two-fold: once he got elected, people stopped working on his behalf, out of ... emotional exhaustion, maybe?
I am generalizing a fair amount here, but I'd say that a considerable fraction of his base worked for OBAMA rather than the causes around which he rallied.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)
I base this on talking to student volunteers in 2008 with the most vaporous views on torture and the proper relationship between business and government.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:12 (fourteen years ago)
You write, Josh, as if that narrative were the only one describing the last couple of years. I hope it's not, since it's formed of cliche after cliche that need further examination.
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:12 (fourteen years ago)
Oh, come on. Of course there are a million interrelated narratives. That was one of them, cliched (whatever that means) or not. Regardless, a mere two years ago there was a groundswell of grassroots progressive or even generally liberal action, or at least intent or impetus or inertia or whatever. Maybe it was illusory, but whatever it was, it has largely dissipated. There are a lot of reasons why, but one thing that is certain is that Obama has not spent much energy trying to re-foster it. I'm curious to see how his 2012 campaign compares to his 2008, in message as well as messaging.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:27 (fourteen years ago)
I don't know. In 2006 and 2008 I saw a surge of interest in the Democratic Party again but little passion for progressive concerns.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)
Obama hasn't tried to energize it because he hasn't been a progressive since his college days, which is to say never.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:31 (fourteen years ago)
Right---I don't know what "liberal action" was going at Obama rallies, unless you (wrongly) mean that coming together in public is a liberal action. The one I attended, in a "swing state" near the end of the election cycle in 2008, was great fun, but it was just a rally. Lots of people canvassed for Obama, but is that "liberal action"? I don't think so. You seem to be identifying "energy" with "liberal action", & I think you shouldn't.
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)
but according to stanley kurtz he's been the ringleader anit-capitalist the whole time!!
...which actually brings me to a real point: successful candidacies these days are kind of a moving target even for their supporters. it was possible to believe (or allow yourself to believe) that obama was both the late, great champion of popular left-liberalism and also the guy that would finally put an end to "all of that"
i mean, they played up both stories! and what we got was sort of both too, ha ha ha.
xp to alfred
― goole, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)
xp I think that's again the political landscape we live in. Voting "Democrat" is about as "progressive" as America gets these days. The far left is a lot more marginal than the far right.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:37 (fourteen years ago)
For my part, as I've boringly said on these threads since 2008, I supported Obama during his campaigns because I thought that mobilizing political activity could counteract our democratic sclerosis and get "good" citizens to exercise public reason & public action (instead of citizens who support bad causes). Obama himself was a rallying point, but as I understood things, I never expected him to be The Leader. We are the ones we've been waiting for, he said; so let's get to work! (Which is one reason why Wisconsin is important.)
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:39 (fourteen years ago)
I hope it's not THAT important, then, because it doesn't look good up there. :(
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)
and a vital part of getting to work is forcing the prez to do some progressive shit on all fronts, or backing a primary opponent against him.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)
Voting "Democrat" is about as "progressive" as America gets these days.
This is serious nonsense; & whatever seed of truth it holds is culpatory of those voters on account of their superficiality, which is to say it's not fact but prescription.
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
Morbius, that's been your line since 2008. When it's claimed that being "progressive" means WE have to work, you say, how am I supposed to, I'm unemployed, I have hobbies, the burden is on the president, which is anti-democratic bullshit: we lead ourselves, we don't need another hero (although if Mel's available...)
― Euler, Monday, 7 March 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
clinton did sort of "claim credit" on DOMA & DADT, by signing them into existence
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
Euler, I do what I can. Do I believe America's going to get any better? Fuck no.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)
Gitmo thing is disgusting but I really don't think the blame belongs with Obama there
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)
there's more than enough blame to go around! it's a republic! the president gets his fair share imo
― goole, Monday, 7 March 2011 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
soto's otm btw too
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
President Barack Obama issued an order on Monday that establishes a process for continuing to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison who have not been charged, convicted or designated for transfer.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:03 (fourteen years ago)
lol nothing like a little context free analysis eh
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
That article strikes me as being incomplete.
- The process is alluded to but there isn't even a cursory sketch of what it is; it could be "each detainee has their case reviewed within X amount of time; during that period of time they will remain in custody at Gitmo", it could be "inmates are to have their balls kicked once every 35 minutes, preferably by Bigfoot Bill", it could be anything.
- There's no mention one way or the other regarding adding new detainees to Gitmo.
What I would like to see, akin to what was written up via the Iraq timetable, is the timetable for processing and charging the detainees. I don't think the government can realistically do anything other than maintain a gross status quo with that.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)
(The Reuters article way upthread, I should clarify; it seems like an outline of a story rather than a story.)
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
lol, yr right, I'm sure context will make it so the order was issued by Geir Hongro, not the president
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
that isn't really how context work fyi
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
works
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo-20110308,0,5728203.story
This is another angle on the same story with more information about what the order actually contained.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
CNN goin for the cheap irony w/"honor" prominently displayed in front of a facility where people have been held without charge for 10 years http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/07/obama-says-military-commissions-for-guantanamo-detainees-will-resume/
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
xxxxxxps if i'm not mistaken that's a reference to something a couple months old, and something we discussed on this thread already (aero was banned iirc). it's something like they get an executive review of their detention every year or something...on the plus side it theoretically gives detainees an extra shot at some process and their potenial release, if there's a lack of evidence. on the downside the chance of a truly impartial review is probably unlikely & the whole thing just further removes the detainee from the courts and actual due process, and solidifies executive control over their fates
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
xp: you know I would take you more seriously on this issue if you would stop linking to severely abbreviated Cliff Notes iterations of this story, particularly when they are right there in front of you:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/07/obama.guantanamo/index.html
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
my only point is that it would be nice if aero stopped pretending like it's Obama keeping these prisoners being tried in US courts of law - Congress has blocked each and every attempt by him to implement that approach and close the prison, and the majority of this country agrees with them. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
At this point and with this Congress, I think Obama should just give them all military trials at Gitmo, rather than detain them indefinately without charges (except for "periodic review") and say "we're still hoping to reach agreement with Congress on having the Justice Department try them in civilian courts."
Obama also outlined procedures in an executive order for periodic reviews of the circumstances of each suspect's detention to determine whether the individual constitutes a significant threat to national security
A legal blog explains the periodic reviews a bit more:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/key-points-from-todays-executive-order-on-gtmo-detention-review/
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 March 2011 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
Note that this does not mean, necessarily, that anyone (like KSM) previously slotted for civilian prosecution will instead now get a military commission proceeding. That remains to be seen.
from that lawfare blog
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 March 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
these guys are going to die of old age & torture stress before they ever see trial or tribunal
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
http://virsto.com/images/site/blog-content/johnny-carson.jpg
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 21:53 (fourteen years ago)
they've been in prison for ten years without charge! it is hardly karnak the magnificent territory to think, fuckin', when somebody has held you without charge for ten years, your chances of ever seeing trial are starting to look grim, imo!
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
So, let me make sure I understand this:
An announcement that Obama is removing the freeze on processing detainees in Guantanamo Bay through military tribunals and (hopefully, not definitively) civilian courts, coupled with more stringent guidelines about what is admissible evidence and what is not and a review process to evaluate whether an inmate should continue to be detained or not, all of which to my knowledge is new and did not exist in the previous ten years of these prisoners' detainment, is proof positive that they are all going to rot in jail and be endlessly tortured.
Is this an accurate statement of your position?
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
I mean, I can understand "I'll believe it when I see it" skepticism; that probably most closely mirrors my response to the report (although I am more willing to give Obama's administration the benefit of the doubt that this is what they intend to do; things always seem to go wrong during the negotiation stage rather than after the order has been put down on paper) but the angle you are coming at this from is IMO just horrible and wrongheaded.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:22 (fourteen years ago)
because I get v. inarticulate about stuff like this here is the ACLU's postion on this. What this does is make sure that holding these guys as long as we want is nice and legal, instead of totally illegal with nobody bothering to object.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:17 (fourteen years ago)
I think I want to add this into the discussion here
The big problem here IMO is Islamophobia coupled with the rebirth of McCarthyism.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:28 (fourteen years ago)
Jesus fucking Christ
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:32 (fourteen years ago)
I don't actually disagree with that ACLU statement at all but it seems to ignore the reality of what is actually happening in the country, which seems more pervasively broken and insidious than the unlawful/immoral detention of the people in Guantanamo Bay would lead you to think.
I think Obama should push very hard for civil trials. I have a feeling he won't, even though the out is there. I do believe that, regardless of the avenue, these guys won't sit in jail forever, although reading about those hearings make me less certain than I was 2 hours ago.
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:44 (fourteen years ago)
these hearings sound like little more than a shitty opportunity for King to do some grandstanding. not sure if stoking a national furor over the hearings is a good idea (what were the last congressional hearings the American public cared about? Lewinsky scandal?) and since no blowjobs are involved might have been best to just try and ignore/bury it... but I dunno. I don't blame yr average muslim for being totally paranoid about this.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:49 (fourteen years ago)
first they came for etc etc
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:55 (fourteen years ago)
it basically turns me into a caricature of yr garden-variety lose-sleep-over-the-bigots-with-their-pitchforks liberal when I hear that an elected official is holding hearings that single out a religious group as being a "problem." I go directly to, fuck it, at least I have maybe 50 years max to live, so that's the upside for me, that the maximum I gotta know about this shit is 50 more years
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:07 (fourteen years ago)
the thing that gets me is when an even-not-very-scientific poll is cited stating that a majority of Americans think it's a good idea to even have these hearings
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:09 (fourteen years ago)
like basically it makes me go "I should really exercise my 2nd Amendment rights now before these fuckers come for me"
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:10 (fourteen years ago)
The majority of Americans also think we should "reduce the deficit." It's one of those common sense questions that of course they're gonna answer affirmatively (most Americans balance their checkbooks, right?).
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:15 (fourteen years ago)
yeah that peter king stuff is scary as hell of course, don't even know what to say about that fascist bullshit
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:51 (fourteen years ago)
it basically turns me into a caricature of yr garden-variety lose-sleep-over-the-bigots-with-their-pitchforks liberal when I hear that an elected official is holding hearings that single out a religious group as being a "problem."
So I take it you would be against hearings over the c-street family, as they are a 'religious group'?
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 02:20 (fourteen years ago)
more nu-mccarthyism
crazy. at about the same time that the generation that were adults during mccarthyism begins to recede, a new generation takes the torch and repeats the same mistakes.
― Z S, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)
lol yeah C-St hearing would go really awesome, no opportunity there for grandstanding by evangelicals or for evangelicals to work they're "we're the persecuted minority now" spiel, what could possibly go wrong with hearings about the C Street group?
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)
Long but highly worth it Stewart clip on the Wisconsin battle:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-exposes-the-lavish-lifestyle-of-the-american-public-school-teacher/
― bury my heart at wounded nerd (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 03:24 (fourteen years ago)
Wow, i am really glad I haven't had the internet at home for the past week. If I had kept up w this nu-McCarthy stuff, i'd have been in the worst mood ever.
Reading about these hearings....holy shit is that tragic. What the hell is wrong with this country??? Every week we slip obliviously, further and further into an exponentially enlarging vortex of clueless irony & hypocrisy.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 14:45 (fourteen years ago)
Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tells TPM he will introduce legislation barring any government funds from being used to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian courts.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 15:09 (fourteen years ago)
what the fuck
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 15:28 (fourteen years ago)
Senator Bull Dike (R-SC) is trying to please his right flank again.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 15:29 (fourteen years ago)
not cooperating re: Gitmo has been Ms. Graham's MO for awhile now
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
I am not a violent guy, but would somebody please at least hospitalize this fucking punk already?
James O'Keefe's organization has put up what they claim is hidden camera footage of NPR executives slamming the Tea Party over lunch at a Georgetown restaurant with O'Keefe's pranksters, who were posing as a phony Muslim advocacy group interested in donating to NPR.In the video released by O'Keefe's "Project Veritas," Ron Schiller, president of the NPR foundation, delivers a laundry list of liberal complaints against the Tea Party and remains quiet as the fake donors complain about Jewish control of the media. A spokeswoman for NPR confirmed to TPM that Schiller is the person in the video but did not offer additional information at this time."They're seriously, seriously racist people," Schiller says of the Tea Party at one point . . . . . . Amid a battle in Congress over NPR's budget, Schiller suggests on the video that NPR might be "better off in the long-run without federal funding."At one point one of the phony donors says NPR's funding battles are illustrative of "the extent to which the Jews do kind of control the media. Certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel." Schiller does not respond immediately, but later says that he does not see "the Zionist or even pro-Israel" influence among NPR backers."I mean it's there in those who own newspapers obviously, but no one owns NPR," he adds. "So I, actually, I don't find it."At another point one of the fake donors complains about the treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood in the press, who he says funds their group."Sadly our history from the record ... shows that we've done this before. We put Japanese Americans in camps in World War II," Betsy Liley, director of institutional giving for NPR, responds in the video.News broke earlier this week that Schiller would be leaving NPR to take a job with Aspen Institute, which he is scheduled to begin April 1.Update: NPR has responded, saying in a statement they are "appalled" by Schiller's remarks and that their foundation never offered to accept the phony $5 million donation.
In the video released by O'Keefe's "Project Veritas," Ron Schiller, president of the NPR foundation, delivers a laundry list of liberal complaints against the Tea Party and remains quiet as the fake donors complain about Jewish control of the media. A spokeswoman for NPR confirmed to TPM that Schiller is the person in the video but did not offer additional information at this time.
"They're seriously, seriously racist people," Schiller says of the Tea Party at one point . . .
. . . Amid a battle in Congress over NPR's budget, Schiller suggests on the video that NPR might be "better off in the long-run without federal funding."
At one point one of the phony donors says NPR's funding battles are illustrative of "the extent to which the Jews do kind of control the media. Certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel." Schiller does not respond immediately, but later says that he does not see "the Zionist or even pro-Israel" influence among NPR backers.
"I mean it's there in those who own newspapers obviously, but no one owns NPR," he adds. "So I, actually, I don't find it."
At another point one of the fake donors complains about the treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood in the press, who he says funds their group.
"Sadly our history from the record ... shows that we've done this before. We put Japanese Americans in camps in World War II," Betsy Liley, director of institutional giving for NPR, responds in the video.
News broke earlier this week that Schiller would be leaving NPR to take a job with Aspen Institute, which he is scheduled to begin April 1.
Update: NPR has responded, saying in a statement they are "appalled" by Schiller's remarks and that their foundation never offered to accept the phony $5 million donation.
― The Man Mens (Phil D.), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 16:33 (fourteen years ago)
how is it this guy is not in jail?
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 16:35 (fourteen years ago)
Project Veritas, people.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 16:51 (fourteen years ago)
Greenwald not letting Obama off the hook because of Congressional actions:
It is true that Congress -- with the overwhelming support of both parties -- has enacted several measures making it much more difficult, indeed impossible, to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the U.S. But long before that ever happened, Obama made clear that he wanted to continue the twin defining pillars of the Bush detention regime: namely, (1) indefinite, charge-free detention and (2) military commissions (for those lucky enough to be charged with something).
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/08/guantanamo/index.html
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:15 (fourteen years ago)
zing:
As as happened over and over, while progressives and civil libertarians are furious about the new Order, former Bush officials and right-wing Warriors are ecstatic. The anti-Muslim McCarthyite Rep. Peter King (R-NY) issued a statement this morning, as quoted by The Post, which lavished Obama with praise: "I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order. The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities." That perfectly captures the legacy of Barack Obama and civil liberties.
It's certainly possible to claim that none of this much matters because other issues are more important. It's coherent to argue that -- everyone has to prioritize what matters most -- but that wasn't an argument I ever heard prior to January 20, 2009, when Democrats generally and Obama specifically aggressively touted these issues for substantial political gain.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 18:16 (fourteen years ago)
NPR seems so right slanted most of the time, its hard for me to get upset about the idea of defunding them. they should just go ahead and replace diane rehm with rush and then problems solved everyones happy.
― dsb, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 18:55 (fourteen years ago)
In an increasingly contentious hearing, Republicans insisted that science on climate change was "not settled" or accused world-recognised experts who had been called to testify of holding "elitist and arrogant views".
"They literally just try to make somebody out to be a flat earther if they disagree in a scientific way," complained Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise.
Democrats had pushed for Tuesday's hearings in the hopes that testimony from climate scientists might give Republicans second thoughts in their moves to strip the Obama adminsitration of its powers to act on climate change.
Republicans are set to move as early as Thursday to vote on the bill that would achieve this. It would permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency from reducing greenhouse gas emissions from factories and would block any further reductions of car exhaust emissions after 2016.
Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who wrote the separate 2009 climate bill, called the new bill "breathtakingly irresponsible".
"If my doctor told me I had cancer, I wouldn't scour the country to find someone to tell me that I don't need to worry about it," Henry Waxman, told the hearing of the energy and commerce committee.
"Most of us don't substitute our own judgment for that of experts when it comes to medicine, nuclear engineering, building bridges or designing computer security."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/08/democrats-climate-change-big-guns-republicans
So is that going to be titled the Planet-Killing Pro-Cancer Act?
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)
Most of us don't substitute our own judgment for that of experts when it comes to medicine
Waxman's never been in an abortion debate, huh
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:01 (fourteen years ago)
We are so fucked
― Z S, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
this is just grandstanding by Inhofe and crew. it will not get past the Senate, much less the President's veto.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
although if a meteor fell on Inhofe tomorrow I wouldn't cry about it
hmm. . .because of this our kids are crowded into classrooms, our streets and highways and bridges are falling apart, and our healthcare bills are out of control?http://robertreich.org/post/3713604784
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
xpost, I just meant the fact that it's 2011 and we're STILL dealing with shit like this.
― Z S, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:14 (fourteen years ago)
not exactly an original observation but yeah xp
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
ah. yeah well. stupidity is eternal.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
at what point do we stop just dismissing everything we dislike as "grandstanding"
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
dan you're not a moderator anymore, let it go ok
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
it's grandstanding if it doesn't result in actual legislation and is done primarily for self-promotional/egotistical reasons
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)
I guess throw ideological in there too
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:19 (fourteen years ago)
It certainly isn't elitist or arrogant to say you know more than somebody with a PhD about their chosen field.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:20 (fourteen years ago)
congress (the space, if not the body) isn't just for legislating... watching waxman rip into motherfuckers is part of the show too!
― goole, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:20 (fourteen years ago)
he's probably a professor though, those people are super elitist
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:20 (fourteen years ago)
So basically there's no point in objecting to rhetoric you dislike until after it gets bills you don't want passed? Isn't that kind of... too late?
― goth barbershop quartet (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:21 (fourteen years ago)
There may be a 'left' in the US, as compared to the rest of the political spectrum - but is there an ideological Left? An ideology is presumably more than just agreeing on 5-10 issues, no? I appreciate the economy of combining groups of single-issue campaigners for mutual support, but I think the failures of the Left recently highlight the shortcomings of such an approach.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:21 (fourteen years ago)
um I was just trying to reassure ZS that this wouldn't have any real-world ramifications beyond the DC-noise-machine-news-cycle. But by all means go ahead and object/bitch about it.
I agree that Waxman's grandstanding is totally A+ awesome, love that guy.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:23 (fourteen years ago)
the House is often more of a circus sideshow than a functional legislative body - complaining about the quality of the acts is all good imho. but it's important, if just for your own sanity, to keep some perspective.
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:25 (fourteen years ago)
this made the rounds a couple months ago re: left wing in american discourse
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 19:25 (fourteen years ago)
off-topic snark: you'd be amazed how many non-lawyers "know" so much more about "the law" than lawyers do.
sorry, had to get that offa my chest.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:57 (fourteen years ago)
interesting twist in WI
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 00:48 (fourteen years ago)
/It certainly isn't elitist or arrogant to say you know more than somebody with a PhD about their chosen field./off-topic snark: you'd be amazed how many non-lawyers "know" so much more about "the law" than lawyers do.sorry, had to get that offa my chest.
see also: doctors.
― ullr saves (gbx), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
Did anyone hear the This American Life from a few weeks ago, where they had a 14-year-old global-warming skeptic whom they'd found at a Glenn Beck rally listen to an eminent scientist's arguments in favor of climate change, and she was respectful but remained unmoved, claiming "But that's just your side of the story" and citing Web sites she'd read?
For all the good the digital age has done in terms of democratizing discourse, I shudder at how that can so easily slip into an undermining of rational thought, with seemingly legitimate ideas suddenly turning into sites for fierce partisan debate.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 01:27 (fourteen years ago)
(I mean, nothing new there, but the piece just sort of crystallized it for me in a really depressing way.)
― jaymc, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 01:29 (fourteen years ago)
The Age of Information
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 01:29 (fourteen years ago)
so much easier to block dissenting bits of data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyEfI3OZ66s&feature=related
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 02:08 (fourteen years ago)
Could someone explain to me why this James O'Keefe/NPR thing was such a big fucking deal that two execs had to resign over it? I must be missing something here.
― Play with human heads instead of playing with balls (kkvgz), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
If you draw fire, you get hit. NPR has become like any self-perpetuating bureaucracy and this is no more than CYA to see if they can save their funding. NPR without federal funds or Fortune 500 sponsorship would become a rump of itself in terms of $$, but it might just set it free to reinvent itself as a respectable news organization again. Of course, they would have to fire the entire board of directors and upper management for a start, craven assholes that they all are.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
As the Juan Williams nonsense last summer demonstrated, NPR has had terrible PR for years. It's not as partisan as FOX News, which operates as a propaganda arm for the RNC and Tea Party, but it IS moderately liberal and should stop apologizing for it.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 18:47 (fourteen years ago)
except, like the Dems, they have no balls.
Non-right-wingnut media people basically have to behave like they're always being taped.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 18:49 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZstxpTBqL0
― goole, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
Alan Simpson == Abe Simpson.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
no matter what else happens in politics this year it will have been worth it for "snoopy snoopy poop dogg"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)
i bet morbs is a lil jealous
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
I'm going to live long enough to give massive shit to everybody who ever made a Morbs is old joke, you fuckin guys will get yours
buncha punk kidzzzz
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:20 (fourteen years ago)
"What's up J0rdan S.! Got some Metamucil here in line at the Costco I see! Buyin' it in bulk I see, you old fuck you! Who's old now! RIP Dr Morbius amirite"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:21 (fourteen years ago)
i was gonna crack a joke about that vid but, come to think, we probably would be in better shape if the "pants on the ground" guy was on the deficit commission.
― goole, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)
fuck bein' hardDr Morbz is complicated
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)
I still am not clear on what motivated both of those execs to quit. Could someone Big Bird that shit for me?
― Play with human heads instead of playing with balls (kkvgz), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:34 (fourteen years ago)
Sure - they're lefties; if you say anything bad about them, their natural instinct is to apologize
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:35 (fourteen years ago)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 2:33 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
post of the year so far
― max, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:36 (fourteen years ago)
cosign
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:36 (fourteen years ago)
the NPR people -- Ron Schiller, VP of donations or something, and Vivian Schiller (no relation, I think), his boss -- had to quit over what R. Schiller said to fake potential muslim brotherhood donors james o'keefe sent after him. like the buffalo beast guy did to wisco gov scott walker, but way worse and more leading, o'keefe's plants said horrendous shit, like jews own all the newspapers or something, and the NPR dude didn't quite protest enough. i think that's the problem? it's hilarious because you watch the transcripted video, and there are so many distracting illiterati typos of simple words like "intellectual" it's hard to follow 'the sting' all that closely. such is gotcha journalism in 2011
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:48 (fourteen years ago)
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
xp gotcha journalism, morelike candid camera
what's great in my mind is they have to lie and deceive to get people to slip up and say stupid shit, while the tea partiers and other repubs don't need any prodding
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 20:03 (fourteen years ago)
man we really need to raise taxes on stock market transactionshttp://robertreich.org/post/3731169513"The Street’s bull market over the last two years has seriously enriched only the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans who hold the lion’s share of stock. . . . Moody’s Analytics estimates that the shopping of America’s richest 5 percent now accounts for 35.5 percent of all U.S. consumer spending."
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
that is insane
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
Some Republican hack was asked on CSPAN this morning why we couldn't tax the rich more, and he launched into the usual crap about "Why would you want to punish the people who have earned this money etc. etc."
That "punishment" meme has got to stop imo. It's not even a tax increase, it's a return to taxes pre-cuts.
"In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16.
Bloomberg noted that the wealthy's low tax rate can be directly attributed to the George W. Bush tax cuts.
Almost three-quarters of the highest earners’ income was in capital gains and dividends taxed at a 15 percent rate set as part of Bush-backed tax cuts in 2003, the statistics show. Of the 400 earners, 289 paid a total effective federal tax rate of 20 percent or less in 2007, the last year for which figures were available, the data show.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)
"...an average income of $344.8 million ..."
This fragment makes me want to barf with rage.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
the equity regular folks had in their houses and 401Ks and pensions pre-crash is now in the balance sheets of rich assholes. i guess the reason we don't tax those assholes, is related to how we let them get away with this fraud in the first place. usa
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:37 (fourteen years ago)
WI GOP Senators have reportedly stripped the collective bargaining provisions from the budgegt repair bill, will vote them in within the next hour with no Dems present.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 9 March 2011 23:57 (fourteen years ago)
collective bargaining repealed by 18-1 vote
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 March 2011 00:59 (fourteen years ago)
Jesus fucking christ.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:02 (fourteen years ago)
Apparently they also violated the 24-hour public notice rule? Fuck.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:10 (fourteen years ago)
links?
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:11 (fourteen years ago)
Good luck, USA.
― Clay, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2011/03/senate-passes-end-to-collective.html
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/wisconsin-gop-plan-advance-anti-union_n_833796.html
Wow what fucking scumbags. Congrats, WI GOP. Way to get people who pretty much despise the Democratic party to resolve to bite the bullet and support the Democratic party.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)
Like I've been trying to distance myself from politics lately because I get so worked up about it, but I'm seriously livid about this right now.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:14 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah me too. It's like this is seriously like "I try not to engage in the 'the other side is evil' shit but straight up, I hope something happens so every fucking one of these assholes know what actual hunger & cold is like."
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:16 (fourteen years ago)
seems like some hairsplitting to consider union bargaining rights a non-fiscal issue
(i assume it's because it has fiscal ~implications~ but no solid $$$s attached)
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:17 (fourteen years ago)
"actual hunger & cold is like."
well to be fair, anyone in the upper midwest that's walked for take-out knows what this is like.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:18 (fourteen years ago)
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:19 (fourteen years ago)
I'm lolling on the inside through my seething rage.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:20 (fourteen years ago)
you big city upper midwestern types with your east coast imports like "take out"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:20 (fourteen years ago)
So why did it take this long for this to happen
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:20 (fourteen years ago)
because there will be an actual recall effort now. this is literally a crazed-with-power fuck-you exercise. Wisconsin GOP just bet the farm on their ability to win an election imo
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:22 (fourteen years ago)
I'm sayin... they waited all this time for what? Or did someone's aide just figure out now that they could pass the bill in this fashion? If not, why didn't this happen a week ago?
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:25 (fourteen years ago)
the GOP.. company men. can't be trusted.
i hope they all get recalled.
― daria-g, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:26 (fourteen years ago)
Reagan's Disciple said...Finally! Thank you Walker. Let's hope the democrats now stay in IL so we can tackle the budget, voter id and conceal carry with out any more of their circus antics.MARCH 9, 2011 7:19 PM
MARCH 9, 2011 7:19 PM
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:27 (fourteen years ago)
which makes the whole thing a whole lot of WHAT. THE. FUCK.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:27 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah I've seen a bunch of comments about the voter ID thing, apparently Obama only won because we didn't have those.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
nate silver and some others on the twitters (the ones who didn't just continue being snide because they have no other mode of expression) speculated that walker looked at the polls and realized he was screwed anyway (and the recall effort has been underway for a while, and well organized). so was like, f*** it, do it live
― daria-g, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)
voter ID thing is a way to stop more young people and non-white people from voting. everybody knows what it is. there is no voter fraud.
― daria-g, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:29 (fourteen years ago)
What continues to amaze me are the distant relatives on my FB feed who are all working minimum wages, but somehow seem to take the Republican's side on this because "damn teachers make too much anyway". Like I want to bang my head against the nearest wall.
xpost - well, yeah, the voter fraud thing is their talking point smokescreen
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:30 (fourteen years ago)
so was like, f*** it, do it live
ty 4 dis
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:34 (fourteen years ago)
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:00 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:07 PM (4 hours ago)
sadly this is nothing. this accounts for spending, a practice antithetical to the lifestyle of the super-rich. to really illustrate what the wealthy actually do with the money they have - nothing - consider that the top 1 percent of wage earners in the united states controls over 37 percent of the nation's wealth. THAT'S insane
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:34 (fourteen years ago)
i'm about halfway through that taibbi book btw and i'd recommend it highly
I feel like when I was growing up ppl were like "athlete salaries are outrageous! littleat how little teachers make!!" -- I wish someone could pinpoint when teachers became the new Mexicans
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:34 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe the idea is to worsen the schools so that they turn out even more ignorant students, who will inevitably vote Republican?
By stripping this part of the bill from the budget bill, they abandon all pretense that this was anything other than a purely idealogical vote. Which may not be a surprise to us, but may be a surprise to lots of fence straddlers. In some ways, I can imagine a lose here being a bigger boon to the Democratic party than a bane, Obi Wan-styled. I hope the Dems don't drop the ball when it comes to taking advantage of such a brazen, galvanizing act.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:34 (fourteen years ago)
Don't mind my phone
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:35 (fourteen years ago)
The dems will drop the ball
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:36 (fourteen years ago)
I think the idea is to worsen the schools with a view toward not having public schools. Public schools don't push the right agenda enough - I think the notion that the state has to pay for schooling is quietly v. unpopular with the types of conservatives who push policy
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:37 (fourteen years ago)
everyone knows only ignorant people vote republican
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:38 (fourteen years ago)
I wish someone could pinpoint when teachers became the new Mexicans
it's totally a sign of the times thing, before the great recession being a teacher was a shitty underpaid job, after the recession it's a (generally) stable union job w/ benefits - the envy of a lot of people.
― iatee, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:38 (fourteen years ago)
public school teachers becoming reviled as freeloading welfare queens is the most terrifyingly Orwellian development since "enhanced interrogation."
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:39 (fourteen years ago)
which term still has hold and is used by Republicans and Democrats instead of "torture"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:40 (fourteen years ago)
Will the wisco teachers strike?
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:41 (fourteen years ago)
they're both insane, dude.
Moody’s Analytics estimates that the shopping of America’s richest 5 percent now accounts for 35.5 percent of all U.S. consumer spending."
5% of ppl accounting for a third of consumer spending means that pretty much everything they buy is just insanely expensive, and not at all the sort of goods that normal ppl buy. which means that it's not likely to be the sort of spending that creates jobs. not a lot of people making bespoke suits and private airplanes, you know? and moreover, as you suggest, their main thing is making money and squirreling it away---so even though richies be shopping, they're not creating jobs/wealth, AND they're cordoning off the rest of their wealth. this is all fine, inasmuch as a person should be able to buy a car elevator if they so desire---the problem isn't what rich dudes spend their money on, it's that they have so much in the first place
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:41 (fourteen years ago)
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 7:41 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark
of course, they're whiny bitches literally eating truffels off the back of their pupils. getting out of work is in their very nature. duh.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:42 (fourteen years ago)
it's totally a sign of the times thing, before the great recession being a teacher was a shitty underpaid job, after the recession it's a (generally) stable union job w/ benefits - the envy of a lot of people.― iatee, Wednesday, March 9, 2011 7:38 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
― iatee, Wednesday, March 9, 2011 7:38 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
^^^otm.
i'd wager (with no data at all) that republican voters got hit just as hard as dem voters in the recession. and i'd also wager that republican voters were less likely to unionized in the first place. hence: butthurt.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:44 (fourteen years ago)
lol yeah gbx i wasn't saying it wasn't insane if it wasn't clear, it's insane
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:47 (fourteen years ago)
Obviously the school systems already failed us by not covering the history of labor unions in this country. I mean, its a travesty that this narrative of "unions are evil" has been able to run this rampant.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:47 (fourteen years ago)
lyfe is madness
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:48 (fourteen years ago)
anecdotally: i never once heard anything ever about Labor in any of my high school history classes. my 6th grade social studies teacher gave me A People's History but, to my continuing shame, I have never read it.
unions, when i heard about them, were something that Other People were a part of, and had less to do with politics and justice and more to do with "why people have benefits."
so, weirdly: i grew up assuming that unions were just like this thing that every company had, that negotiated with management about stuff like pay and healthcare. my dad (libertarian) never really railed against them (mom: teacher), and I didn't realize that unionizing was/is a politically radical act until college.
the only job i had that was vaguely unionizable was when i was a bike messenger, and that org/project has been an abject failure. the chicago bike messenger union should really be a case study.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
i don't recall learning the history of it at all. but my grandparents were union so at the very least i was expected to be respectful..
― daria-g, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:00 (fourteen years ago)
Maybe it was because I grew up in the Midwest, but I remember touching on labor unions several times between junior high and high school.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:01 (fourteen years ago)
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:40 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark
Yes, it's hard to get the genie out of the bottle once torture is legalized and the public shrugs its shoulders.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:03 (fourteen years ago)
err, back in the bottle.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:04 (fourteen years ago)
genies generally are quite happy to come out of their bottles.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110308/ts_yblog_theticket/ahead-of-the-2012-campaign-states-debate-voting-rights
"If some GOP lawmakers get their way, it could be a whole lot tougher for people across the country to cast a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. Boosted by major electoral gains in state legislatures nationwide in the 2010 campaign, Republican lawmakers in 32 states are pushing measures that would require citizens to show a state identification or proof of citizenship to vote. Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, GOP lawmakers are proposing new limits on college students who vote in the state, potentially eliminating a key base of electoral support for Democrats in the state ahead of the upcoming presidential election."
for real, these people hate america
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:07 (fourteen years ago)
i grew up in pittsburgh, which was obviously pro-union territory. my parents were not in unions, though, and my introduction to the politics of it came from an elderly substitute teacher who could be relied on to spend 45 minutes ranting against them if anyone said the word 'union.' (he claimed that his son was in a union and made way too much money despite being a sluggard.)
i had to get a dispensation when doing a high school work study thing at a steel plant. (they actually still exist, because they did specialized stuff.)
i was compelled to join the ufcw when i had a summer job stocking grocery shelves overnight. i made minimum wage *and* had union dues deducted. which was not uplifting, though i'm sure the case could be made that they were protecting the lifers.
unions are important lest monied interests run rampant. i just wish they seemingly placed a higher priority on protecting their workers than protecting their situation.
― mookieproof, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:08 (fourteen years ago)
anyway, this shit in wisconsin is obviously way over the top. sure, there are shitty teachers, and maybe union procedures protect them, maybe not. but this stuff is all ideological and aimed at destroying unions, not removing bad teachers or making the unions more accountable.
― mookieproof, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:09 (fourteen years ago)
or, you know, balancing budgets..
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:11 (fourteen years ago)
bright side: GOP should be toast in WI, right?
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:12 (fourteen years ago)
public school teachers becoming reviled as freeloading welfare queens is the most terrifyingly Orwellian development since "enhanced interrogation."― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, March 9, 2011 5:39 PM (31 minutes ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, March 9, 2011 5:39 PM (31 minutes ago)
The demonization is already in progress... The NYT asks an investment banker if teachers make too much money
Most family incomes in Bronxville, about 15 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, are in the six and seven figures, ranking the village among the wealthiest enclaves in America. But even an additional $100 to $200 tacked on, in a village where the typical homeowner already pays $43,000 in annual property taxes, has met enough resistance to make town officials think twice.Some residents argue that the town should be more businesslike, cutting other costs to offset the outlay for smaller classes. Peter P. Pulkkinen is one. A 40-year-old investment banker, he and his wife, Sarah, moved here in 2004 from the Upper East Side and their two oldest children are now in the first and third grades. He wants small classes for them. But rather than raise taxes, he would restrict teacher compensation— particularly their benefits.Displaying a sheaf of charts and projections that he and a friend prepared for a school board meeting, Mr. Pulkkinen said in an interview that if property taxes continued to rise in Bronxville at roughly the trajectory of the last decade, they would double by 2020 — and by 46 percent in the unlikely event the “austerity budgets” of the last two years continued through the decade. “I think it is a false paradigm to have to choose between radically diminished services or exponentially higher taxes,” he said, “without first addressing the structural issue of teacher compensation.”
Some residents argue that the town should be more businesslike, cutting other costs to offset the outlay for smaller classes. Peter P. Pulkkinen is one. A 40-year-old investment banker, he and his wife, Sarah, moved here in 2004 from the Upper East Side and their two oldest children are now in the first and third grades. He wants small classes for them. But rather than raise taxes, he would restrict teacher compensation— particularly their benefits.
Displaying a sheaf of charts and projections that he and a friend prepared for a school board meeting, Mr. Pulkkinen said in an interview that if property taxes continued to rise in Bronxville at roughly the trajectory of the last decade, they would double by 2020 — and by 46 percent in the unlikely event the “austerity budgets” of the last two years continued through the decade. “I think it is a false paradigm to have to choose between radically diminished services or exponentially higher taxes,” he said, “without first addressing the structural issue of teacher compensation.”
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:16 (fourteen years ago)
I've been traveling all day, just read about Wisconsin. Whoever said this should be an Obi-Wan moment was otm, but sadly J0rdan is also otm that democrats will drop the ball. What a fucking mess.
― Z S, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:16 (fourteen years ago)
40-year-old investment banker Peter P. Pulkkinen is a fucking asshole
― Z S, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:19 (fourteen years ago)
the GOP woulda been doing this shit -- or at least trying -- even if Obama and the Dems hadn't won in 2008 or Lehman Bros. still existed. they'd find another rationale in some instances, but it isn't as if anyone who pays attention should act surprised that a bunch of right-wing nuts acted like um right-wing nuts when they got power.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:23 (fourteen years ago)
I googled that guy yesterday after reading the article. he used to work for lehman brothers.
― iatee, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)
Displaying a sheaf of charts and projections that he and a friend prepared for a school board meeting
so a dude who works in the industry whose math LOL skills damn near cratered the world's economy sits and plays w/ a spreadsheet in his spare time and this qualifies him to pontificate as an expert on municipal finance?!?
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)
― ullr saves (gbx), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 8:54 PM (29 minutes ago)
6th grade! i was assigned it in AP US history, 11th grade. i was sort of apolitical at the time, and am only working my way through it the past couple years. you should definitely read it!
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)
xpost: better still, a dude who worked for the company whose collapse damn near brought the world economy to its knees.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:26 (fourteen years ago)
6th grade! i was assigned it in AP US history, 11th grade. i was sort of apolitical at the time, and am only working my way through it the past couple years. you should definitely read it!― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 8:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 8:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
dude was a really excellent teacher. really glad we didn't pay him enough.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:27 (fourteen years ago)
kinda amazed that Peter P. Pulkkinen isn't sending his kids to a private school. that's a lot of money tho
― mookieproof, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:32 (fourteen years ago)
yeah the teacher who assigned it to me was really great too, don't think i appreciated her enough at the time tbh
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:43 (fourteen years ago)
On the plus side, Illinois just formally banned the death penalty and commuted the sentence of 15 prisoners on death row:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/03/quinn-signs-death-penalty-ban-commutes-15-death-row-sentences-to-life.html
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)
awesome, awesome, awesome
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:56 (fourteen years ago)
Mooks, the article specifies that the local property tax burden of around $35,000-43,000 per household is a lot cheaper than paying for private schools for multiple children. So these douches moved there in order to get private school-quality educations from the public system for less than market rate, and now they don't like the deal they agreed to.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, March 9, 2011 8:56 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:10 (fourteen years ago)
man fuck you WI GOP. I wonder who the lone dissenting vote was. also weird that they waited this long to do it
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:12 (fourteen years ago)
One Dale Schultz, moderate.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:18 (fourteen years ago)
i love moderates!
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:21 (fourteen years ago)
The graphic designers of Wisconsin have already made their first move...
http://www.justseeds.org/blog/images/Drooker_GSEnglish.jpeghttp://www.justseeds.org/blog/images/GS-Spanish.jpg
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:30 (fourteen years ago)
That is awesome. I kind of want one (the poster, but a strike is fine, too.)
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:39 (fourteen years ago)
Hi-res versions here
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:41 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, i was being snarky
― mookieproof, Thursday, 10 March 2011 03:44 (fourteen years ago)
Really hope this general strike happens.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 04:17 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svsgvqyr0rQ
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 04:27 (fourteen years ago)
I'm just going to pretend that all right thinking Wisconsin people are currently out protesting, otherwise the comments on every Wisconsin newspaper site I've read point to about 90% of the people completely in support of the Republicans.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:08 (fourteen years ago)
newspaper site online comment people are the scum of the earth, doesn't matter what paper or where
― iatee, Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:10 (fourteen years ago)
This is true, I don't know why I allowed myself to get sucked back into them.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:10 (fourteen years ago)
amen iatee, avoid those places for your own sanity/ability to go on
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:11 (fourteen years ago)
yeah totally
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:14 (fourteen years ago)
man it isn't every day that I can say "this is a new low" with a straight face, but:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/08/7-child-predators-protected-by-american-teachers-unions/
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:41 (fourteen years ago)
*vomit*
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:45 (fourteen years ago)
pissed that I will count as a page view on whatever the hell that site it
― bnw, Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:45 (fourteen years ago)
so THAT is what megan fox has been up to
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:47 (fourteen years ago)
Megan Fox is a stay-at-home mom, blogger, radio-talk show host and conservative folk-singer.
^dying
― little humma boy (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:48 (fourteen years ago)
there is power in a union
http://vimeo.com/20862183
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 10 March 2011 05:49 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5sx-4i5y0E
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:40 (fourteen years ago)
watch for the moment when rep barca cedes the floor to speaker fitzgerald, who immediately calls roll, while barca jumps up while folks in background yell "no!"
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:42 (fourteen years ago)
it's at 2:35–2:50
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:43 (fourteen years ago)
The funny thing about the Madison protests hitting 100,000 last weekend is that the population of Madison is ~240,000
that's an awfully lot of people they're assuming drove in from out of town to claim 90%, i.e. it is a printed lie
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:46 (fourteen years ago)
the assembly convenes to rubber-stamp the bill tomorrow morning. i'm out of town, but honestly i'm sort of hoping folks just won't let assemblypeople in the chamber. oh, and if you see one of the fitzgerald brothers any time, be sure to spit on them.
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:46 (fourteen years ago)
god the republicans dont care at all do they!
― max, Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:48 (fourteen years ago)
its almost as if.... theyre not really that worried about finding employment if they get voted out
― max, Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:49 (fourteen years ago)
amateurist,
that video is beyond belief
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:50 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=32693
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:50 (fourteen years ago)
str8 evil shit on that vid
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 10 March 2011 08:07 (fourteen years ago)
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/sen13/news/:
March 7, 2011Sen. Mark MillerParts Unknown, ILDear Senator Miller,Thank you for your hand-delivered letter with an offer to meet, in Illinois, about the business and future direction of Wisconsin.Let’s set aside how bizarre that is for a moment.As you know, this legislation is designed to finally balance the state budget, prevent layoffs and create jobs in the real world. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed Wisconsinites, and at least 1,500 more whose jobs are in the balance because of your media stunt. We all deserve better than this.In the meantime, members of your caucus have been meeting with the governor’s staff, talking to the media, trying to find a way back to Madison, and contradicting your message in public. In case you don’t remember, you were present yourself at one of those meetings with the governor’s staff. Your grasp of reality, and control of your caucus as minority leader, continues to amaze me.As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate. As you know, you forfeited that right and opportunity when you decided to flee the state instead of doing your job.Your stubbornness in trying to ignore the last election and protect the broken status quo is truly shameful. While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin. I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality.Sincerely,Scott FitzgeraldSenate Majority Leader
Sen. Mark Miller
Parts Unknown, IL
Dear Senator Miller,
Thank you for your hand-delivered letter with an offer to meet, in Illinois, about the business and future direction of Wisconsin.
Let’s set aside how bizarre that is for a moment.
As you know, this legislation is designed to finally balance the state budget, prevent layoffs and create jobs in the real world. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed Wisconsinites, and at least 1,500 more whose jobs are in the balance because of your media stunt. We all deserve better than this.
In the meantime, members of your caucus have been meeting with the governor’s staff, talking to the media, trying to find a way back to Madison, and contradicting your message in public. In case you don’t remember, you were present yourself at one of those meetings with the governor’s staff. Your grasp of reality, and control of your caucus as minority leader, continues to amaze me.
As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate. As you know, you forfeited that right and opportunity when you decided to flee the state instead of doing your job.
Your stubbornness in trying to ignore the last election and protect the broken status quo is truly shameful. While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin. I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality.
Sincerely,
Scott FitzgeraldSenate Majority Leader
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 08:24 (fourteen years ago)
this is some straight up orwellian shit:
As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate.
you mean like how every single time any democrat in the assembly has proposed an amendment it has been ignored, shouted down, or procedurally circumvented? fitzgerald knows damned well he wouldn't have countenanced a single democratic amendment to the bill.
srsly if i see this guy in public i will spit on him.
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 08:26 (fourteen years ago)
Seriously. This can't be legal, whether for constitutional, moral or procedural reasons. And just because Scott Fitzgerald writes a specious letter to the Democrats on official stationery or whatever, doesn't make the worldview contained within it at all legitimate.
We need to make value judgements on these people and make them stick, and not be scared of being called 'mean' or 'elitist' by the Illiterati. Religious bigots, venal politicians, ugly fat bastards, University cheaters, what have you. I've never been shy about namecalling when the recipient is a total hoser trying to victimize people.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 10 March 2011 08:49 (fourteen years ago)
Ugh, that video is giving me flashbacks to the 2000 election recount shouting.
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 10 March 2011 09:28 (fourteen years ago)
John D's Power in a Union video is great work. I love that people like Tom Morello and Wayne Kramer are out there doing union songs but when one comes from someone who doesn't make a habit of protest songs it's hair-raising.
― I've been dancing since 9 and I'm tired and hungry (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:28 (fourteen years ago)
I unwisely followed the Megan Fox link to http://www.intolerantfox.com/
Any legislator who refuses to vote on legal and constitutional bills should be thrown out of congress, arrested for treason and sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Etcetera
― I've been dancing since 9 and I'm tired and hungry (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:33 (fourteen years ago)
everytime I hear a soundbite of a lib activist bemoaning the GOP doing something "in the dead of night," I know exactly why their side lost.
WAKE UP AND FIGHT DIRTY
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:42 (fourteen years ago)
amen
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 10 March 2011 13:41 (fourteen years ago)
Dems too milquetoast/high to fight dirty.
― Play with human heads instead of playing with balls (kkvgz), Thursday, 10 March 2011 13:42 (fourteen years ago)
I would say the Wisconsin dems actually did a pretty good job of going all out in this fight even if that literally meant "run away"
― iatee, Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:21 (fourteen years ago)
taking this opportunity to say "I agree with iatee"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:29 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, have to say that there was in my view no scenario that didn't end with "collective bargaining wiped out for next few years, wages go down across the state" but among all such scenarios I think the D's managed to create the one that damages Walker most.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:31 (fourteen years ago)
Also: NYTimes, uncharacteristically, runs a front-page story on "Chris Christie says false things a lot":
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/nyregion/10christie.html?_r=1&hp
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:33 (fourteen years ago)
^The media did those pieces occasionally about Reagan in his first year as president, then discovered hardly anyone cared.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:37 (fourteen years ago)
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:31 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
agreed
― by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
I liked the bit in the other (otherwise fawning) nyt article about how he was like the belligerent drunk guy at the party who some people find amusing but pretty quickly get sick of
― iatee, Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:24 (fourteen years ago)
I guess that makes new jersey a party
NJ will get sick of him pretty quickly, hating our governors is the new jersey way
― max, Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
NJ is already sick of him. it's gonna be a long three years before we're rid of his loud bloated ass tho'
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:33 (fourteen years ago)
http://videos.nj.com/star-ledger/2011/03/gov_chris_christies_brash_styl.html
― iatee, Thursday, 10 March 2011 18:01 (fourteen years ago)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/poll_majorities_support_recall.html
good luck, WI Republicans
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Thursday, 10 March 2011 18:06 (fourteen years ago)
usually this guy is as fetid as the late David Broder's commentary, but very interesting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030904549.html
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 18:11 (fourteen years ago)
intvw with a walker supporter:
The Awl: How would you sum up your reasons for supporting the bill?
Sarah: From what I've read it seems that Walker is trying to restructure how money is divvied up and to lessen, and eventually eliminate, the possibility of receiving more funds than needed for certain programs and organizations. I believe that taking away unnecessary bargaining rights for public employees, especially teachers, is important to our students in order to improve Wisconsin's education system. It seems that teachers are afraid of being paid what they're actually worth.
If we pass this bill we might see a change in the quality of teacher that comes to our school system and a significant weeding out of bad ones. If there's one field where jobs should be EXTREMELY competitive, it's in schools. If there ever were a profession where job performance should hold the top ranking reason for better pay and incentive, it's being a teacher. Why do teachers deserve to get paid better than everyone else? Just because they say so? All because they formed a little elitist club that's good at bitching. They're taking paid days off of work and leaving children all over the state with an even worse education. All because they think they deserve to get paid better based on their motivation to argue rather than their actual (sub-par) performance. Some teachers even encouraged students to join a walk out and march to the capital. When the students got there, they didn't even know why they had come or what was going on. That's a prime example of the lack of willingness to actually educate students.
http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/one-voter-explains-why-i-support-scott-walker
― max, Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:02 (fourteen years ago)
im sort of interested in the institutional causes of the democrats unwillingness to push for tax raises on the superrich, given that they poll so well. is it that theyre afraid of losing monetary/campaign support? lets assume for a second that they dont actually believe that those kinds of tax hikes are good.
― max, Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:05 (fourteen years ago)
All because they formed a little elitist club that's good at bitching.
i would think that investment banking, hedge funds and law firms are more deserving of this charge than teachers' unions ... but i don't think Teabagger so whudda i know?!?
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
im sort of interested in the institutional causes of the democrats unwillingness to push for tax raises on the superrich, given that they poll so well.
b/c they don't want to piss off the investment bankers, hedge funders and BigLaw attorneys who are their major sources of funding these days ... all of whom may "discover" that they love low taxes more than they love the Dems' social libertarianism if marginal tax rates go back to where they should be.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
Talk about... projection on the part of a Teabagger?
― anna sui generis (suzy), Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)
It seems that teachers are afraid of being paid what they're actually worth.
Oh please, I'd love to hear what you think teachers are "worth".
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:14 (fourteen years ago)
ha so many counterarguments spring to mind but it's not like i'm arguing with this person
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)
Nah, AJ Dionne's always leaned more liberal than Broder and lately he's been more assertive about it as well. I like dhis takedown of Democrat Mark Warner involvement with the Gang of 6 "bipartisan" group allegedly taking on the deficit (but cutting rich people's taxes first). Soto, I also think he offers more challenging and original ideas than the late Broder.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:34 (fourteen years ago)
My contempt for Dionne stems from (a) his early admiration for Joe Lieberman (b) how unctuous he sounds on NPR. He epitomizes entitled NPR liberalness.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:01 (fourteen years ago)
wasn't there a pie chart going around a year or two ago indicating that both parties are equally reliant on the superrich for donations? like to an extent that neither can afford to offend people of the superrich class.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:39 (fourteen years ago)
The irony, of course, is that by failing to defend unions and thus losing an important revenue stream the Dems force themselves into chasing after the same Wall Street fat cats as Republicans.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
They're taking paid days off of work and leaving children all over the state with an even worse education.
Because no one else gets or takes paid vacation days? It almost makes paid time off seem like a morally reprehensible thing, which is yet another example of when people's gut-led rhetoric is actually totally giving away the farm and things are just so wrong....
Whole screed just makes me so, so sad.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)
do you guys read rortybomb? you need to read rortybomb!! mike konczal is the shit. and he's been on fire lately.
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/international-woman%E2%80%99s-day-wendy-brown-and-what-feminist-theory-can-do-for-you/
I think libertarians are literally the worst group possible to intellectually marshall for the broad task of fighting for autonomy, respect, decency and power to be broadly shared. In some ways, they are the argument to be overcome. Instead, I’d argue that everyone who wants this project to succeed needs to engage in the the feminist critique of liberalism.
Why? Academic feminism has thought deeply about two arguments that need to be addressed. The first is that that the project is larger than stagnating wages, something that can’t be addressed by the differential inflationary impacts of the consumption of cheap electronic goods and really cheap food. The issue is about freedom and autonomy. The subject that can lead a life of equality, liberty, autonomy in the public is not a given or a prerequisite to society but instead a political creation, something created only through struggle.
The second is that a contract, like a marriage contract or like a labor contract, can be “freely” entered into but still contain elements of coercion to it. Coercion can still be the central characteristic of it. That the market is a series of voluntary transactions, and any outcome of it just, is an illusion. How to pull away that veil is the project, and feminist thought gives us a start on it.
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/towards-a-theory-of-corporate-and-financial-sector-solidarity/
I talked more about GE, this business model, and the bailouts in this post. That money came in from a very active business line in the subprime loan business during the housing bubble, among many other activities. As Froud et al point out, their capital markets business structure was dependent on a form of ratings agency arbitrage, where the financial market part of the business piggybacked onto the industrial and manufacturing base’s excellent AAA credit rating (“This solid industrial base is the basis for GE’s triple- A credit rating, which allows GE Capital to borrow cheaply the large sums of money that it lends on to consumers and commercial customers…”). Regulators, analysts and investors look at the boring store in front selling light bulbs, while the real money is in the casino running out of the back room.
kind of off-topic re: wisconsin but he's got post about that too.
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)
The subject that can lead a life of equality, liberty, autonomy in the public is not a given or a prerequisite to society but instead a political creation, something created only through struggle.
i mean, can i get this tattooed on my knuckles?
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
UH OH – he doesn't believe in natural rights.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:46 (fourteen years ago)
i don't either!
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:48 (fourteen years ago)
Neither do I, but you'd be surprised how many conservatives insist that liberals do. I got in a fight a few weeks ago with a relative who insisted that liberals believe in Big Government because "you want to improve people."
"Wrong," I said. "Human beings are so corrupt that we require an immoveable bureaucracy to mediate.'
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:51 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, there was that andy mccarthy post just recently where he gets into all this rousseau shit and islam. rousseau! sorry andy, believe me nobody really has 'la tabula rasa' in their heads over here broseph
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:54 (fourteen years ago)
I don't know about improving PEOPLE but I believe that liberalism improves people's LIVES. Is that naive?
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
x-post But don't you see? The teachers take the whole summer off. The whole summer! They should be working. Working, I say! What's that? The kids are off, too, and the teachers have no one to teach? Then what are we paying them for? Fire them all! Home schooling for everyone!
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:56 (fourteen years ago)
well tbf i don't think kids should get summer off either maybe.
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)
"Wrong," I said. "Human beings are so corrupt that we require an immoveable bureaucracy to mediate."
rolling thread of religious material that conservatives have ironically positioned themselves against includes pirkei avos which says explicitly:
"Pray for the welfare of the government, for without the fear of it, man would swallow his fellow alive."
― Mordy, Thursday, 10 March 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)
Do conservatives hate schools and education so much because so many of their various agendas in this day and age would be debunked by the slightest bit of rational educated thought? They way they've positioned themselves right now, they're p much always going to be opposed by teachers and professors and anyone who knows anything, right?
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:01 (fourteen years ago)
Do not underestimate the amount of reactionary educators out there.
― Banaka™ (banaka), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:16 (fourteen years ago)
holy shit it's banaka
― Mordy, Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:18 (fourteen years ago)
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/west/soldier/title-page.gif
― maxwell's silva hamartia (nakhchivan), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:18 (fourteen years ago)
fuck yeah it's like the lone ranger back just when you need him to kick a little ass
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
The Lone Ranger is a reactionary individualist icon
― Banaka™ (banaka), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
that post is rlly interesting goole thnx
― deej, Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)
What is the evidence that a powerful Dem senator like Chuck Schumer BELIEVES anything? and if so, what's the relevance? His actions are based on his he belief in keeping investment bankers happy so they keep him in office til he's 80.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
I have two friends from college who turned into HUGE teabag types since I was last in regular contact with them and I had originally hid them on Facebook because I was sick of the party line nonsense and Glenn Beck love they were always spouting. Anyway, these two are also teachers in the Midwest, so I unhid them to see what they thought of all of this. Oddly they've been completely silent for the last month.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
>so I unhid them to see what they thought of all of this. Oddly they've been completely silent for the last month.
I hope they are beginning to think about which side they are really on. I really want to believe that FOX has finally overstepped the bounds of plausibility with their messaging -- people are not parroting the talking points anymore because the talking points are causing too much cognitive dissonance, the lie has outgrown the screen
Go Wisconsin
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
Clapper's an idiot fwiw
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:33 (fourteen years ago)
This country is doomed and tbqh I plan to be pretty much drunk 24/7 and enjoy the ride for however many years I have left.
Senator Rand Paul’s toilets don’t work, and he blames the Department of Energy.At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department’s “hypocrisy” and “busybody nature” has “restricted choices” for consumers rather than made life better for them.“You don’t care about the consumer really,” Mr. Paul said. “Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you.”The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 to phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year. . . . “I’m not against conservation,” Mr. Paul said. “But why not do it in a voluntary way,” rather than force him to adopt the new bulbs with “fines and threats of jail?”Mr. Paul also drew a pointed parallel with abortion, opening his questioning by asking Ms. Hogan, “I was wondering if you are pro-choice?”Ms. Hogan said she was “pro-choice in light bulbs.” But Mr. Paul accused her, the Energy Department and Democrats in general of hypocrisy. “You favor a woman’s right to abortion,” he said, but “you’re really anti-choice on every other product.”He said that department standards on energy-efficient refrigerators and toilets, for example, do not work. “We don’t even save any money,” Mr. Paul said. “We have to flush the toilet 10 times before it works.”Mr. Paul started to leave the hearing room shortly after his turn at questioning the witness, but he was called back into the room by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who scolded Mr. Paul for being rude to Ms. Hogan.“I think it behooves us all not to engage in name calling,” Ms. Shaheen said. Government workers like Ms. Hogan are simply trying “to carry out the work Congress has asked them to do,” and Congress can change the law if it wants, Ms. Shaheen said.Ms. Hogan herself had a kind word for Mr. Paul: “I can help you find a toilet that works.”
At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department’s “hypocrisy” and “busybody nature” has “restricted choices” for consumers rather than made life better for them.
“You don’t care about the consumer really,” Mr. Paul said. “Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you.”
The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 to phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year.
. . . “I’m not against conservation,” Mr. Paul said. “But why not do it in a voluntary way,” rather than force him to adopt the new bulbs with “fines and threats of jail?”
Mr. Paul also drew a pointed parallel with abortion, opening his questioning by asking Ms. Hogan, “I was wondering if you are pro-choice?”
Ms. Hogan said she was “pro-choice in light bulbs.” But Mr. Paul accused her, the Energy Department and Democrats in general of hypocrisy. “You favor a woman’s right to abortion,” he said, but “you’re really anti-choice on every other product.”
He said that department standards on energy-efficient refrigerators and toilets, for example, do not work. “We don’t even save any money,” Mr. Paul said. “We have to flush the toilet 10 times before it works.”
Mr. Paul started to leave the hearing room shortly after his turn at questioning the witness, but he was called back into the room by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who scolded Mr. Paul for being rude to Ms. Hogan.
“I think it behooves us all not to engage in name calling,” Ms. Shaheen said. Government workers like Ms. Hogan are simply trying “to carry out the work Congress has asked them to do,” and Congress can change the law if it wants, Ms. Shaheen said.
Ms. Hogan herself had a kind word for Mr. Paul: “I can help you find a toilet that works.”
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:37 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ punchline
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:39 (fourteen years ago)
people that don't understand energy efficiency are savages fwiw
US POLITICS: My toilets, your problem.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
God damn you tree hugging liberal hippies, its my god damn right as an American to waste as much god damn water as I god damn want when I flush my Texas-sized shit down the drain. Mind yer own god damn business.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:42 (fourteen years ago)
Rand Paul needs to lay off the cowboy steaks -- 10 flushes jeez
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:43 (fourteen years ago)
look am i just benighted by what i must unlearn from gov't schools, or, has anyone ever heard of government mandates on toilets using water? i mean, i guess there might be a reg somewhere but i'll be damned if i've heard of it. is paul just making this up? 'low-flow toilets'? is that it? for the life of my i thought that was... something voluntary, that you bought if you wanted one.
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:43 (fourteen years ago)
Pharmamom
03/10/11 16:57
My hero!!! As I was plunging the stupid downstairs toilet last night--for the THIRD time this week, I was cursing those moronic busybodies in Congress who obviously know NOTHING about plumbing and the elimination of human waste. I am seriously considering looking for black market toilets that will actually flush more than a flea's poop. If I were Queen for five minutes, that toilet rule would be the first thing to go.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
No, the 1.6 gallons per flush standard is a Federal standard for toilet manufacturers, but it's there for very serious water conservation reasons. Like, these guys don't seem to understand that water is something we can actually run out of.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:46 (fourteen years ago)
toilet rule?? i'm not kidding, do i live in a fog of msm propaganda where i have never heard of this stalinoid terror?
xp lol ok it's real
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:46 (fourteen years ago)
what are you talking about, water is free!!
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:47 (fourteen years ago)
My water bill would beg to argue that point.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:47 (fourteen years ago)
"If its yellow, let it mellow."
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:48 (fourteen years ago)
on the real for a second, i have seen environmentalists argue that water-privitization might not be all bad, since governments could never jack the price up on their utilities to reflect their real costs.
what i really want is one of those airplane toilets. i might start shitting into my vacuum.
― goole, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:49 (fourteen years ago)
but rragggh it doesn't matter what kind of newfangled toilet you have, because American septic plumbing is completely useless anyway and doesn't carry the waste away effeciently in the first place and ..oh who cares
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:49 (fourteen years ago)
I remember reading somewhere that there actually is a black market for pre-reg toilets.
― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:52 (fourteen years ago)
tbf the new light bulbs suck
― Euler, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:53 (fourteen years ago)
Pretty much more of a dark grey market at this point. Both plumbers I've had out to my house have offered to get me one, completely unprompted.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:53 (fourteen years ago)
also don't get why American toilets have so much water; would gladly replace that with the GIANT SUCKING SOUND of a European toilet
― Euler, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:54 (fourteen years ago)
We replaced all the bulbs in our house with CF bulbs two years ago. We have not changed a light bulb since.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:54 (fourteen years ago)
good (slightly old) explanation of the difference between US and Australian toilet plumbing, if you're curious
http://joneakes.com/jons-fixit-database/1429-Australian-low-flow-dual-flush-toilets-work
― VegemiteGrrl, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)
there's so many different models for CFLs I dunno how anyone could make this kind of statement. buy a different one if you don't like the ones you have
― You hurt me deeply. You hurt me deeply in my heart. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:56 (fourteen years ago)
^^^^ this, except I believe some of ours are going on 3 years now
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:58 (fourteen years ago)
I'm too damn cheap to replace the ones I have, esp. since they're gonna last two+ years, but maybe I ought to look into it.
I've been in some ghastly-lit hotel rooms recently (nice places fwiw o/w) with florescence the culprit.
― Euler, Thursday, 10 March 2011 23:58 (fourteen years ago)
my concern with the CFLs is that 99% of people aren't going to dispose of them properly.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 11 March 2011 00:00 (fourteen years ago)
idgi why US toilets are such a bother, we've had half-flush (low flush) loos here for freaking EVER and no on ever ends up with clogged up loos, what is wrong with u ppl.
― one time, something happy craz (Trayce), Friday, 11 March 2011 00:10 (fourteen years ago)
8,000 strong Union rally in Indiana today
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54258266@N04/5515379847/
http://www.wthr.com/story/14223321/largest-protest-expected-at-indiana-satatehouse-today?clienttype=printable
― Milton Parker, Friday, 11 March 2011 00:18 (fourteen years ago)
may Rand Paul be sentenced to an eternity of not being to take a shit on anything other than a German toilet.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 March 2011 00:19 (fourteen years ago)
doesn't look like 8K fwiw
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 11 March 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
Labor organizers promised 20,000 to 30,000 protesters outside the Statehouse on Thursday afternoon. Police said by 11:00 am, over 5,000 people were estimated at the rally. State police estimated the final number at over 8,000 attendees.
― Milton Parker, Friday, 11 March 2011 00:47 (fourteen years ago)
whoah that toilet-flushing complaint is literally straight out of a King Of The Hill episode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_with_Power
― sleeve, Friday, 11 March 2011 00:52 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGXHcaNSLX8
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 11 March 2011 00:56 (fourteen years ago)
from another forum (but says it so well):
Quel surprise.
So what Rand's saying here is, he lays great, steaming piles in private as well as in public. And we all know the ones he pinches off in public won't go down with just one flush so...again.
Posted by: Jennifer on March 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 March 2011 01:21 (fourteen years ago)
nice timing on grinding this axe AFTER he was on Daily Show
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 March 2011 01:25 (fourteen years ago)
Rand Paul is just playing boutique politics here, quite effectively, too.
There are many hundreds of thousands of voters, if not several millions, who don't understand the first fucking thing about water conservation, water policy, local utilities, air pollution, but they do understand what happens when they flush their toilet and not all the poop flushes away. It bothers them. It irks them. It's visceral. This kind of anti-gov-regulation rhetoric really connects with them. They love it.
But before we can tackle this sort of jaw-jutting ignorance, first we need to teach these people how to pour pee out of a boot, because they can't figure out the instructions that were written on the heel.
― Aimless, Friday, 11 March 2011 01:39 (fourteen years ago)
i'll still take joe barton over rand paul. check this out
Barton, perhaps the oil and gas industry's staunchest support on Capitol Hill, says the subsidies for the industry should remain unchanged "so long as you believe that you believe in the free market capitalist system and they should be headquartered in the United States."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/barton-free-market-oil-subsidies-necessary-to-keep-exxon-from-going-out-of-business.php?ref=fpblg
"subsidies" . . . "free market capitalist system" -- gotta love it
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 01:50 (fourteen years ago)
xp those voters are going to really hate our national return to the age of the chamber-pot
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 11 March 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
that quote makes absolutely no sense
― J0rdan S., Friday, 11 March 2011 01:55 (fourteen years ago)
like, not from an ideological standpoint or anything, it's just almost impossible to parse
barton has to be top 3 dumbest guys on the hill.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Friday, 11 March 2011 01:56 (fourteen years ago)
After a few glasses of wine, I made the mistake of engaging The Corner commenters regarding ToiletGate. Needless to say, its moderating system hasn't posted my last two remarks. The argument's here.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 01:56 (fourteen years ago)
"as long as you believe that you believe that believing that is what you believe"
― J0rdan S., Friday, 11 March 2011 01:56 (fourteen years ago)
Homeless veterans could lose 10,000 housing vouchers
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats raised loud objections Thursday to a plan by Republicans in the House of Representatives that they said would eliminate 10,000 housing vouchers for homeless veterans this year, an effort to save $75 million from the 2011 federal budget.
"I believe it's immoral," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, urging House Republicans to abandon the plan.
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the proposal "astounding" and said no federal budget should shortchange the most vulnerable Americans. She wants to eliminate homelessness among U.S. veterans.
"We owe it to our veterans to provide them with the resources and support they need to put a roof over their heads," Murray said. "And this is just one more example of the Republicans' reckless budget that puts politics and ideology over families, communities and even those who have served and sacrificed for our nation."
Republicans defended the plan by noting that thousands of vouchers have gone unclaimed this year.
"The fact of the matter is there will not be a veteran, a homeless vet, that will not get a voucher," Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, said during a debate on the House floor. "The fact of the matter is there are 30,000 vouchers available today. Only 19,000 of those have been used. There are 11,000 vouchers waiting."
But Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, cited a recent federal report that said that more than 76,000 veterans were homeless on any given night in the United States and that veterans were 50 percent more likely to be homeless.
― J0rdan S., Friday, 11 March 2011 02:09 (fourteen years ago)
Stupid soldiers, subsidized in their resort-like barracks by taxpayer money, sucking off the government teat. Get a real job, you slackers! Maybe being homeless will teach you a little about courage and self-reliance in the face of adversity.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 March 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)
There are several new models of shitters that power away your poo with no issues, screw the black market.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 02:33 (fourteen years ago)
"The fact of the matter is there are 30,000 vouchers available today. Only 19,000 of those have been used. There are 11,000 vouchers waiting."But Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, cited a recent federal report that said that more than 76,000 veterans were homeless on any given night in the United States and that veterans were 50 percent more likely to be homeless.― J0rdan S., Friday, March 11, 2011 2:09 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark
― J0rdan S., Friday, March 11, 2011 2:09 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark
norm is not exactly counterarguing here
what exactly is the counterargument to getting rid of historically underused and/or unused vouchers?
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 11 March 2011 02:34 (fourteen years ago)
If they're not being used, do they still cost money?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 March 2011 02:57 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah -- they jam all that unused cash down Rand Paul's toilet.
― WmC, Friday, 11 March 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)
After a few glasses of wine, I made the mistake of engaging The Corner commenters
There's a 50-50 chance you'll lose your mind if you try engaging some of these people. I'm sure you thought about that beforehand.
― clemenza, Friday, 11 March 2011 03:02 (fourteen years ago)
sorry for hueg but
http://i.imgur.com/0YjH9.jpg
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 11 March 2011 03:38 (fourteen years ago)
also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUpO1QFMDtM
;_; for my home state
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 11 March 2011 03:49 (fourteen years ago)
How is that even... I mean... how.. who. Gah. I fucking hate this country right now.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 03:56 (fourteen years ago)
I hate to say this, but thank god for pat quinn
― first it smells like donuts, then it smells like don't ask (askance johnson), Friday, 11 March 2011 04:12 (fourteen years ago)
wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. wtf. etc.
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 11 March 2011 05:23 (fourteen years ago)
the scary thing is that... probably 40+% of people just. don't. care. about. anything.
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 11 March 2011 05:24 (fourteen years ago)
Its not the people that don't care that scare me, its the percentage of people out there actively supporting Walker and the governor of Michigan. This country is doomed.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 05:28 (fourteen years ago)
Jesus ... this Michigan asshole makes me THANKFUL for having Chris Christie as governor ;_;
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 March 2011 05:43 (fourteen years ago)
people are misinformed. the left does a shitty job about explaining to people why things should be a different way. where was maddow when there was time to do anything about this bill? how much time does she waste making fun of the tea party when she could be talking about .. policy?
i was following news on the twitters/blogs as the wisconsin vote happened and during the runup and all, and it's like, how many people in the 'professional left' do i pay attention to who CAN. NOT. express themselves without using this snide, resigned, obnoxious tone - they are really incapable of conveying positive support for anything. they sound like losers.
― daria-g, Friday, 11 March 2011 05:50 (fourteen years ago)
tv is a shitty medium for wonky policy stuff
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 05:56 (fourteen years ago)
daria, agreed. maddow is insufferable.
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 11 March 2011 06:07 (fourteen years ago)
MADDOW OWNS
― J0rdan S., Friday, 11 March 2011 06:08 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lAR4CrgwRg
rofls.
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 11 March 2011 06:49 (fourteen years ago)
I like Rachel Maddow. She was maybe the least gasbaggy person on Air America, and is maybe the least gasbaggy person on cable news. Sometimes she goes a little to far with the "DO YOU SEE?" sarcasm, but for the most part I think the show is pretty good as investigation and information relay.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 11 March 2011 06:54 (fourteen years ago)
i'm usually the last person to make fun of someone for how they look or the way they talk but with that dude it's just like...don't talk like that
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 11 March 2011 06:56 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, rachel maddow delivers a great debriefing almost every night of gop talking points and schemes. her recent interview with naomi klein and overall thesis that spending-cut mania's disaster capitalism here at home is a+ punditry
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 12:50 (fourteen years ago)
Engaging with politics even a few hours a day is enough to make someone crazy. I'm willing to forgive Maddow an occasional sneering tone or two because she has to engage with it 24/7 and still seems sane.
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 13:23 (fourteen years ago)
yeah I posted that less b/c of maddow and more because of the fuckery afoot that she happens to be describing
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 11 March 2011 13:29 (fourteen years ago)
I like Maddow but I see that the Daily Howler guy (who is always complaining about liberal press people not meeting his expectations) is tough on her:
All over MSNBC, overpaid hosts misconstrued these events—but no one was more certain than Maddow, the Sister Aimee Semple McPherson of liberal TV hosts. As she frequently does, she went on the air and stated her view with absolute certainty and self-assurance. We liberals got plates of warm comfort food.
And of course, Maddow was wrong:
MADDOW (3/8/11): Thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour.
Hey, Wisconsin? You won! There has been no ceremony, there has been no applause yet, there has been no formal surrender ceremony—but I am telling you, you have won! Congratulations, Wisconsin.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
It's hard to read him all the time. Plus he's fixated on at least 2 things that he always mentions:
1. Press people who made up stuff about or satirized Al Gore (and thus got Bush elected he's sorta saying)
2. Statistics re how kids do in school. He's always critical of them but never suggests how they should be tabulated, or acknowledges that it may just be really hard to analyze this with accuracy
― curmudgeon, Friday, 11 March 2011 14:38 (fourteen years ago)
well he's right about #1 at least. i remember even the 'new yorker' piling on gore with a caricature of a profile
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 15:56 (fourteen years ago)
He says repeatedly that it's hard to assess student achievement! What he rails against is people who don't, and people who subscribe to the "great man" theory of schools (i.e. just parachute in some superteachers and hey presto) and people who say we need to "raise expectations" in schools. His solutions to education issues are often submerged, it's true, but it's pretty clear that he feels income inequality is the culprit - that kids are already on vastly different levels before they set foot in a classroom at all.
I skip over the Gore stuff now but to be fair he hasn't mentioned him in oh, at least 20 minutes.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:06 (fourteen years ago)
whoa wth just happened in michigan????
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:09 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.politicususa.com/en/martial-law-michigan
What the fuck.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:12 (fourteen years ago)
i think thats kind of not as big a deal as maddow and others are making it out to be
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 16:14 (fourteen years ago)
Uh, I think its an even bigger deal. Like, there should be Egypt style uprisings all over MI right now.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:15 (fourteen years ago)
how so? is it likely that any of the powers will be flexed? prob not, but that it even made it into law is extremely O_O
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:16 (fourteen years ago)
holy living fuck
― goole, Friday, 11 March 2011 16:17 (fourteen years ago)
fwiw i've heard the WI bill rammed through included provisions like that -- gives the governor the authority to dissolve the political structures of towns deemed financially in trouble (by some standard i guess) and appoint someone to run them. beats having assholes beg you for LGA!
― goole, Friday, 11 March 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
like for real, that this ~even exists~ as law is horrifying to me.
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
did these guys all read "Shock Doctrine" and go "saaaaaaaayyyyy....."
let a thousand paul bremers bloom
― goole, Friday, 11 March 2011 16:20 (fourteen years ago)
ok maybe i could have phrased it better--not that its not a "big deal"--but this is just a slight expansion of an already-passed bill, isnt it? from what i understand, the governor of MI has been allowed to do this for a while now. (i think this is true of a lot of states! nyc's budget & finances are still technically controlled by the state, iirc)
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 16:30 (fourteen years ago)
jesus. i'm on the last pages of that new gary shteyngart novel and real life is just getting eerily similar.
― adult music person (Jordan), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
this seems a clear response to the threat of democracy
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
ok maybe i could have phrased it better--not that its not a "big deal"--but this is just a slight expansion of an already-passed bill, isnt it? from what i understand, the governor of MI has been allowed to do this for a while now.
it doesn't help that the original story posted is maddeningly vague.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:32 (fourteen years ago)
i can't even
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:35 (fourteen years ago)
I know the desire to stick one's head in the sand and ignore this kind of stuff is exactly what allows it to happen in the first place, but, I don't know, for my own sanity and well-being I almost have to pretend this shit isn't happening. It really depresses the hell out of me.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:56 (fourteen years ago)
HOLY SHIT I WOKE UP THIS MORNING TO FIND THAT JAPAN IS UNDERWATER AND I'M UNDER MARTIAL LAW!!!
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:57 (fourteen years ago)
(I know a lot of places nearby that could be considered in financial emergency...)
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 11 March 2011 16:59 (fourteen years ago)
does anyone know . . . how does the whole freedom-from-government tea-party libertarian crowd feel about gop governors expanding their executive powers to declare martial law? doesn't that seem a little more threatening and invasive than health care reform?
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:01 (fourteen years ago)
I remember a few months ago when they were talking about suspending unemployment benefits, about the negative effect it would have on Jackson: it would suddenly take millions of dollars away from the local economy, effectively crippling it...I suppose that under these new laws, doing something like that becomes very plausible all of a sudden...
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:12 (fourteen years ago)
I would say now is the time for the UP to finally secede, but I imagine most of the local reps and senators back the gov's plans.
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:13 (fourteen years ago)
so michael moore was not exaggerating when he claimed that the richest 400 americans have more money than half of the rest of us do
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
but it'll all start trickling down soon, right? laffer?
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
I'm afraid I don't have much faith that people will take their necks out from under the boot anytime soon. There's some really creepy self-hate in the rush to assure the bosses that you stand with them no matter what, as if it's some kind of guarantee of your character to uphold authority even when it's detrimental to you.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
it's called 'sacrifice' and its something your grandparents--the greatest generation--know a hell of a lot more about than you spoiled sissies...
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:20 (fourteen years ago)
not to double-post but i cannot get over the fact that richest 400 americans have more money than half of the rest of us do. i hope we eliminate the estate tax soon and push that percentage higher! medieval times, here we come, baby!
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:25 (fourteen years ago)
yeah but see they EARNED it by working hard.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:27 (fourteen years ago)
lol "here we come"; dude they NEVER WENT AWAY
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:27 (fourteen years ago)
I don't think anything really drove that home like touring the mansions in Newport, RI
That politifact link is already dead, is there another one?
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:28 (fourteen years ago)
this one works for me, though I can't tell a difference in the url from the broken one
― WmC, Friday, 11 March 2011 17:30 (fourteen years ago)
not to triple-post, but this politifact wisconsin link i just checked was live
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
here's their general site
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah that ones not working either. ITS A CONSPIRACY.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
Just go here --http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/and a working link is at the front page
― WmC, Friday, 11 March 2011 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah I got it now.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:33 (fourteen years ago)
can someone get me a michigan link that doesn't look like it's made by some old women in a rotary club basement?
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 11 March 2011 17:57 (fourteen years ago)
tldr; warning:
Since a chorus of idiotic opinions about the price of gasoline and "what to do about it" is going to be trumpeting all year, especially in summer (when oil prices seasonally peak), I'm going to point to a brief post at Climate Progressthat might prove useful when, inevitably, your friend/dad/uncle repeats something they heard on fox.
first, some background:
The cost of gasoline has been rising steadily as the turmoil in Libya and other Middle East countries has caused worldwide concern about the availability of oil. As of this week, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $3.52 cents.That increase has prompted a new round of political hand-wringing about the impact of the rising gasoline prices on individuals and the overall economy. It also renewed a debate over domestic drilling that last flared during the summer of 2008, when gas prices soared past $4 a gallon.On Thursday, Congressional Republicans said that they plan to introduce legislation that would increase the domestic production of oil. At a news conference, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio blamed the president for obstructing increased drilling.
That increase has prompted a new round of political hand-wringing about the impact of the rising gasoline prices on individuals and the overall economy. It also renewed a debate over domestic drilling that last flared during the summer of 2008, when gas prices soared past $4 a gallon.
On Thursday, Congressional Republicans said that they plan to introduce legislation that would increase the domestic production of oil. At a news conference, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio blamed the president for obstructing increased drilling.
Now, the useful chart:
http://i56.tinypic.com/1zzqqll.jpg
Yes, domestic oil production has significantly INCREASED since Obama took office (to my chagrin, because much of the increase is due to the environmentally disastrous exploitation of shale). To place this increase in context, it needs to be seen in contrast to the trend of domestic production since the early 1970s:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2v8fwgk.jpg
The CP post quotes a Financial Times article (behind a firewall) that says:
US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade….
As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.
Calls from the GOP (and some democrats) to combat rising gasoline prices by drilling more oil domestically are profoundly ignorant. The decision of whether or not to increase domestic drilling (more than already has been increased) will have very, very little impact on the price of gasoline. A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that full access to offshore drilling would reduce the price of gasoline THREE CENTS by 2030, and with no impact in prices at all by 2020.
The only group of interest that would be benefited by increased offshore/shale/tarsand/ANWR drilling is Big Oil. That is it.
As many have repeatedly said, the price of oil, while certainly influenced by world events (such as those in Libya and Egypt) and, at times, is ultimately driven by supply and demand. Supply likely peaked a few years ago, in 2007-2008, when oil was around $140-150 per barrel and gasoline was around $4/gallon. The only thing that drove down the price was a reduction in demand, caused by the Great Recession. Since that time, supply has not increased - it has struggled to maintain a plateau. And demand is rising again, particularly in the developing world. THAT is what's driving the rise in oil prices.
The way to reduce the price of oil is to REDUCE DEMAND, through conservation, energy efficiency, and clean energy. I know that's a message you've all heard a billion times but it needs to be repeated loud and clear when the summer (century?) of energy ignorance commences.
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 18:20 (fourteen years ago)
larry elliott says he expects oil to rise to $130-$140 in the near term, back down to $80 due to "the recession" this will cause, and then long-term at $200 a barrel
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 March 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
obama said basically that about 30 mins ago, fwiw xp
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 11 March 2011 18:34 (fourteen years ago)
At this point I want gas to go up to like $7 a gallon.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 18:34 (fourteen years ago)
he did say they were going to look into more offshore drilling, though xp
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 11 March 2011 18:36 (fourteen years ago)
he did? I didn't hear his press conference.. *searches for transcript*
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 18:37 (fourteen years ago)
and its not like the price increases have anything to do with supply in general.. it has everything to do with uncertainty regarding the saudis..
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 11 March 2011 18:40 (fourteen years ago)
can someone get me a michigan martial law link that doesn't look like it's made by some old women in a rotary club basement?
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, March 11, 2011 12:57 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Elegant Bitch (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)
what's yr problem with the other one?
― hapshash jar tempo (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
Jtm: No. All web sites in Michigan required by law to be run from basement of local VFW hall, didn't you hear the governor decreed it last month?
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:09 (fourteen years ago)
except puremichigan.com which I hear just got $10m more funding
smh
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
it's an afterthought at best in light of WI and MI (not to mention the Japanese earthquake and tsunami), but in one of its periodic treks across the Hudson the NYT finds that the GOP's favorite Fat Governor is less than honest.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
that totally wouldn't destroy our economy or anything
fwiw, that's roughly the average price of gas in Europe right now. From EIA:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2uo2ah2.jpg
but yeah, you're right that the U.S. is so dependent on cars that gas at that price for any significant amount of time would be disastrous. The states that turned down funding for high-speed rail were outrageously short-sighted.
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)
They weren't being "short-sighted," they were being "run by Republicans."
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:19 (fourteen years ago)
haha, yep. it's so agonizing to watch dudes like Boehner and Palin make statements about "energy policy". it's like you're lost out in the forest with no food, and one group of people is out there trying to build a shelter and make a fire and find food, and Boehner and Palin are advising you that eating your own poop is the only way to proceed. And then not only that, but there's another group of people who are like "yeah, listen to Boehner! we have to eat our own shit!!"
^GREAT ANALOGY
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)
― Master of Projection (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:40 (fourteen years ago)
i feel like if i could run for 6th grade vice-president again, this time i would WIN with my awesome poop analogies
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 19:43 (fourteen years ago)
I was being slightly facetious, but at this point we need something to smack us out of our complacency and actually DO something about real alternatives instead of just talking about what we might someday consider putting on the table to discuss in the future.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:45 (fourteen years ago)
it wouldn't though - it's actually possible for people to live differently
I could have had a pleasant walk to lunch today, but gas isn't too bad, so I drove. if gas were 7 bones a gallon, I'd have walked. people'd be pissed, and then they'd adapt.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:48 (fourteen years ago)
well, and i say this as an irritating self-righteous cyclist: it's not the "getting sandwiches" part that would hurt the economy, it's the "trucking goods around" part. and ppl with insane commutes.
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:49 (fourteen years ago)
http://i53.tinypic.com/1249gf4.jpg
OOPS!
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)
I hate to sound harsh and heartless here but, oh well, its pretty much crystal clear at this point that things have to get a hell of a lot worse wrt to energy in this country before they get better. So, bring it on I guess.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:51 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, you're right - even if people were walking from the subdivision to the food lion a mile away, the goods that had been trucked in would/will cost wheelbarrows of money because of how much it had cost to ship them in
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:53 (fourteen years ago)
exactly
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:54 (fourteen years ago)
speaking of unions: does anyone know what role, if any, the teamsters have played in squelching the development of rail infrastructure in the US? not looking for a villain or anything, but i'd have to imagine that the 11th largest political lobby (according to wiki) would have opinions on energy policy that wouldn't gel with the vaguely defined feelings of the so-called left in general
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 19:58 (fourteen years ago)
If God didn't want us to use the oil, God would not have given us the oil.
(I'm sure I've heard this before, though it's sort of an all-purpose justification for anything.)
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 March 2011 20:09 (fourteen years ago)
(xpost) Most of the rail-squelching attempts I've seen lately have come from far-right mouthpieces like the Taxpayers' League. AFAIK, Teamsters donate more heavily to Democrats.
And re: gas prices and costs of groceries, I've been trying to buy as much locally farmed food as I can for quite some time; I really believe it can make a difference.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:12 (fourteen years ago)
the teamsters represent a lot of rail workers iirc
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:15 (fourteen years ago)
rail is a huge mover of trailers across great distances- truckers need rail
― brownie, Friday, 11 March 2011 20:16 (fourteen years ago)
If God didn't want us to strangle each other, He wouldn't have given us hands.
― Aimless, Friday, 11 March 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
aha, ok.
i mean, i know they're traditionally dems and that the right hates rail (duh! c'mon guys gimme some credit), i just didn't realize that they rep'd rail workers, too. and forgot about trains actually moving containers
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
I've been trying to buy as much locally farmed food as I can...
Always a good idea to vote for social change by spending for it. It's amazing how sensitive the banks and corporations are to changing directions in the flow of money. They'll chase after even relatively small amounts.
― Aimless, Friday, 11 March 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah, it all adds up. For example, buying locally, organic, whatever ... do what you can, since a loss of just a few percentage points of market share for a company is big enough for them to alter policy. Same with other forms of conservation/consumer activism. Every little bit helps, from a big picture standpoint.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 March 2011 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
hey y'all can i just
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/17039_f260.jpg
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
str8 up the two biggest (I HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT THIS) things you can do to reduce yr 'footprint' and take money from the mouths of CEOs is
1) stop driving2) stop eating meat
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)
1) lifelong2) not likely, but at the minimum
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)
I prefer to approch it as "drive less" or "eat less meat." I haven't gone to a diet of only local organic arugula, and as we were talking upthread re: that stupid George Will "liberals love trains because they want to steal your freedoms" bullshit, it's not either/or. I use a combination of car/bike/bus/rail (and my wife and I share one car, which isn't always easy) but the cost savings and the environmental impact make it worthwhile to me.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 20:56 (fourteen years ago)
'Progressives' going "Americans can suck it for being shortsighted" re: energy prices are really fucking irritating. Don't pretend you give a shit about poor people and the working class and then espouse this bullshit.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)
I prefer to approch it as "drive less" or "eat less meat."
well of course, me too. i just tend to think that even the softest liberal doesn't realize how much less of either they could actually manage. this doesn't apply very well to, say, New Yorkers (who are walking all the time anyway), but i think there's a lot of progressive types in my hood (mpls) and, oh i dunno, california, that drive waaaaaaaaaay more than they have to.
then again, american urban "planning" has stacked the deck squarely against most alternative transportation. and again: ppl gotta get to work. i'm not going to bedgrudge someone too much for taking a 15 min drive instead of a 1hr bus at 6am in the morning.
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:02 (fourteen years ago)
as a progressive who cares about this issue I don't see it 'americans can suck it' but rather 'americans are gonna suck it' - this is coming, it's always been coming. poor people and the working class don't make the rules that lead to our crazy land-use, but they're also the ones who are gonna have to adapt their lifestyles most.
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
yeah that's the uncomfortable reality i'm strugglin with
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
This isn't an "adapt your lifestyle" problem, though - you've got to drive to where the work is, and you've got to buy the food and clothes that get trucked in. Pointing to light rail is kind of pointless - even in the best of cases, that's going to be used by relatively few people day to day.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
since i'm the only one who used the word "shortsighted" in this recent discussion, i'm assuming that's aimed at me. but i was referring to the republican governors who sabotaged their states' opportunities to build high-speed rail as being shortsighted, not "americans", and certainly not poor people.
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
why do buses and light rail suck? because nobody takes them. why does nobody take them? because they suck. when people ditch their cars, there's going to be a virtuous cycle. as long as poor people can afford to drive, public transportation in most of the country will suck.
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)
people should live where they work imho. live in cities. avoid driving as much as possible. eat locally. this is basic shit.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:21 (fourteen years ago)
not that so much as the 'suck it' part, ie:
it wouldn't though - it's actually possible for people to live differentlyI could have had a pleasant walk to lunch today, but gas isn't too bad, so I drove. if gas were 7 bones a gallon, I'd have walked. people'd be pissed, and then they'd adapt.
I mean, yeah, no one wanting to take "pleasant walks to lunch" are the real driver of gas usage in this country. I'm not sure if you're supposed to plan ahead for a nine-hour hike each way if your job is 35 miles from home or what, though.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:22 (fourteen years ago)
I wish life worked out like this.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
(xposts) My light rail is filled to capacity every day.
Honestly though, many of the working class bought homes (with huge garages for gas-powered toys) in far-flung suburbs 45+ minutes away from where they work. And yes, I do think a lot of people are going to have to change/adapt. (My parents bought a behemoth RV when they retired, and quickly found out fueling it was going to break them, for one.)
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
we have been over this before. EVERYONE NEEDS TO MOVE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE.
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/03/08/2011-03-08_gas_price_adds_fuel_to_the_fire_no_relief_in_sight_say_the_experts.html
^^^people I don't feel bad for
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:26 (fourteen years ago)
Honestly though, many of the working class bought homes (with huge garages for gas-powered toys) in far-flung suburbs 45+ minutes away from where they work.
yup. absolutely disastrous (ex)urban planning there.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
also lol at Americans complaining about the lowest fuel prices in the world. fucking whiners.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
Milo is OTM here.
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
GOP-style determinist bullshit
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)
it's like Corner commenters fighting over the laziness of the pool.
*poor
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)
In a country this large, there is no feasible alternative to cars as the primary means of transit for most people.
are you sure about this? consider before you answer that this country was around for about 150 years before widespread use of car.
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)
Is light rail going to serve every rural and former rural (now deep suburban) community? No one's arguing against light rail or urban mass transit - I'm saying they would only mitigate the problem. In a country this large, there is no feasible alternative to cars as the primary means of transit for most people.
most people don't live in rural areas! the large majority of america is suburban or urban. suburbia is totally adaptable. people are gonna have to give up a lot of shit they took for granted, tho.
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)
I didn't read that first paragraph of Milo's, I don't really agree with that
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
― max, Friday, March 11, 2011 4:30 PM
so you're suggesting these people move to Amish country.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
I fully recognize that my job/salary allows me to live where I am living, which isn't even a super affluent neighborhood but still has a median single-family home price of something like $325K for 1200 square feet; pretty much everyone I know not living in a condo or apartment is living in a house that's been in their family for 50+ years (or spent a shitload of $$$ on their place; we looked at a really nice house alst weekend that was 2100 sq ft and on the historical register: $650K).
We are likely not moving any any time in the near future unless we win the lottery or we leave the state of MA altogether; we do not want to spend all of our money on a house, even one we might love, because we like doing other things as well.
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)
Milo, you take a bus to a light rail line. Have you never done this?
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:37 (fourteen years ago)
a lot of working class, lower middle class, middle class, and upper middle class people live in the city, without any major problems, alongside superrich people like me and iatee
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)
I suppose we could just depopulate everything between SF/LA and the Mississippi, but that seems kind of unproductive.
i dont see why having people between sf/la and the mississippi means we need as many cars as we do?
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:39 (fourteen years ago)
Says the guy living in the most expensive city in the country. Telling people to 'live in the city' sounds nice, as long as you don't have to start asking if it's feasible for the vast majority of people.
what isn't feasible is the current lifestyle required by our shitty (lack of) urban planning. we are going to have to concentrate populations more, that's just a fact. populations have shifted from the rural to the urban and back again for centuries. this is not impossible - it won't be pleasant, and there will be a lot of logistical issues that need to resolved, a lot of planning, re-thinking how communities should be structured, etc. but it is not impossible.
(And that 'locally eaten' food still depends on being driven into the city, unless Manhattan and San Francisco and Chicago have sprouted poultry farms I'm unaware of.) [/i]
I make a point of trying to ensure that the vast majority of the food I eat comes from the Bay Area. there are loads of farms here. I am fortunate to live in California, which feeds a huge chunk of the country. more people should live near where their food is grown. move. Kansas (or wherever) sucks anyway lol.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)
And then a bus from light rail to near your workplace? I seriously question if people arguing that have experienced just how large southern metropolises (and suburbs) are. Arguing about it being shitty planning or irresponsible is fine and dandy, but generally kind of useless, in that it doesn't make for real world solutions.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:44 (fourteen years ago)
I think that if it was made a priority, you could have decent intracity transportation for our top 25 metro areas within 5 years.
The sticking point is going to be what has to happen in order to make it a priority for the top 25 metro areas to have fantastic intracity transportation; my assumption is that we will be too concerned with our descent into cannibalism.
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:44 (fourteen years ago)
milo what is your real world solution
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
yeah we are going to have to abandon the furthest exurbs. this is already happening. I'm not sure what else you want the answer to be milo!
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)
no i see the primary people mover being high gas prices, and the moving being done permanently
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
I see cars being the primary people mover, moving them to places where they can afford to live and find jobs
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
haha xp
And then a bus from light rail to near your workplace? I seriously question if people arguing that have experienced just how large southern metropolises (and suburbs) are.
OMG it's almost like asking cities to invest in their transportation infrastructure!
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
Dakotas/Montana/Wyoming/Idaho?
nobody needs to live in these places. there's no industry, the farming sucks. make it all into giant parks.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:48 (fourteen years ago)
aren't the Dakotas already mostly abandoned anyway lol
Maybe if you closed Montana and Wyoming to families it would keep Richard Ford from writing novels.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:49 (fourteen years ago)
I seriously question if people arguing that have experienced just how large southern metropolises (and suburbs) are.
Aren't a lot of corporate work environments not even IN cities? I've seen so many giant office buildings along highways outside of cities, surrounded by grassy fields and some light industry and a helluva lot of parking spaces for everyone who drives there from their suburb where they live. (Or even semi-rural areas.) Just getting people into the city doesn't actually solve much in some places.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:49 (fourteen years ago)
Guys your whole plan for the world is entertaining to watch unfold, but you seem to forgetting about the people that actually LIKE living out in the rural areas, small town communities. Is your plan to "concentrate populations" going to force people to move to the city against their will? Because, kinda what it sounds like.
I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you guys at all, but it never hurts to keep in mind that a significant chunk of this country's population isn't just going to fall in line with this ideal urban environment.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:49 (fourteen years ago)
richard fords novels are all set in NJ!
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
I never said I have an answer. I'm just saying that "move to the city, you yokels" and "working people can adapt to paying twice as much for everything" are terrible answers and doubly so when coming from people who claim to be progressives.
Unlike most of you, I live in an area where there is literally no option but to own a car. What HOOS said about those wishing a CATO-led disaster on Texas rings true for me here too - people for whom there will be no real impact essentially wishing a great amount of ill on a lot of good people who have little control over the circumstances of where they live and how they get around.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
I've seen so many giant office buildings along highways outside of cities,
they do this for tax reasons and because of the cost of real estate. those drivers can be eliminated. there's no practical reason that Google has to have their HQ down in the peninsula in the middle of nowhere, it's all just tax break shit.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
I'm fine with them all becoming ghosttowns in our imaginary unavoidable future, I don't think they have any redeeming value whatsoever, it's just that they're so decentralized that public trans may not work for these people or not very well.
uh jon, then a significant chunk of this country's population can figure out how to pay for their preferred lifestyle, just like we all do now, but with different variables.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)
Is your plan to "concentrate populations" going to force people to move to the city against their will? Because, kinda what it sounds like.
well when they have no gas to drive anywhere and there's no food nearby, I think they'll hitch a train to where the nearest food bank is
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:52 (fourteen years ago)
i dont have a plan for the world. the world has a plan for the world! the plan is that gas prices are going to rise, forever, and no one will be able to afford to live in rural areas.
it would be nice if we could figure out ways to make that transition easy on the people whom it most affects, but it doesnt matter if they like living in rural areas, or if the infrastructure is currently built in a specific way. cars will be unaffordable! i dont even understand how this is an argument.
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:52 (fourteen years ago)
Thanks in part to cash-for-clunkers and stricter fuel efficiency standards, the automobile and gas industries bought themselves some time, according to the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/business/economy/09gasoline.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cash%20for%20clunkers&st=cse
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:52 (fourteen years ago)
people for whom there will be no real impact essentially wishing a great amount of ill
I'm not wishing ill, I'm describing what is gonna happen, I'm describing what is the logical outcome of an insane amount of bad decision-making.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:53 (fourteen years ago)
But if no one lives in these rural areas, how do you plan to grow all this food we are going to eat? I mean, rooftop gardens are only going to support so many people.
― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
lol Shakey, Mountain View is "in the middle of nowhere"? You are batshit insane in this thread.
― Euler, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
I like living my life in hotel rooms made of solid gold, I REALLY like it actually, but I cannot currently afford to do it. living a rural life w/ urban amenities is expensive and depends on government subsidies and cheap oil.
nobody's planning to force anyone to move anywhere. we're just saying "gas prices are going to make the price of living in these places impossible for poor and middle class people and they may have to move."
and again, this idea that most of america lives in real rural areas is a republican fantasy.
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)
come back George Will, nothing is forgiven but apparently your stupid argument wasn't as stupid as it appeared
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
lol I know little jokey hyperbole there (glad someone knows there Bay Area geography!)
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, March 11, 2011 4:51 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
are there no working people in the city or something??? idgi
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:55 (fourteen years ago)
I have news for you - most of the people that live in rural areas are not farmers. and somehow, food gets grown and eaten anyway! how does that work hmmmm
apologies in advance, I am being totally a jerk on this thread now...
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:57 (fourteen years ago)
I live in a place that I'm guessing most of you would sneer at, but it's a smallish town so no one has to drive very far to get around; I live on the outskirts of town & it's a 10 minute drive to anywhere in town. We spend very little on gas. I wish this town had public trans but mostly b/c parking at the university sucks (hard to find and $$$). I'd pay more to take the bus there and back each day than I would on gas even if it were $5 a gallon.
i.e. let's not confuse The Suburbs with rural America
― Euler, Friday, 11 March 2011 21:58 (fourteen years ago)
happy to be embody George Will strawman, I can't wait to boss him around from my Glorious Liberal Commie Palace in San Francisco tbh
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
eat your broccoli you capitalist bastard
most people in sf drive too
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
Do you foresee light rail being the primary people mover in the Dakotas/Montana/Wyoming/Idaho?
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, March 11, 2011 3:46 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
no. cars/trucks will be, because it makes sense. again: the issue isn't just working ppl getting to work in places with zero infrastructure, it's ppl in the burbs driving when they really, really don't have to. OR: actually (re)building burbs so that essential goods and services are within walking distance.
i don't have stats but i'd have to imagine a decent chunk of car-miles-traveled in this country could be eliminated by ppl saying to themselves "do i really have to drive for this?"
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
Milo, just out of curiosity, what city/town do you live in that you are finding light rail so unthinkable/unworkable?
I work downtown, and live about 11 miles away. My bus-to-train-to-work trip is about a half hour, and the light rail stop is practically at the door to the office. Yes, there is added difficulty of getting out to suburban office parks etc., but using downtown as a transit hub can get you to MANY places easily. And the thing is to keep investing in that, not trat it as some lefty boondoggle.
And again, I'm aware that many people need to drive. Sometimes I need to drive. It's not a choice between only mass transit or only driving, it's a combination. But it's a combination some people seem really unwilling to entertain.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:01 (fourteen years ago)
It's not a choice between only mass transit or only driving, it's a combination. But it's a combination some people seem really unwilling to entertain.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, March 11, 2011 4:01 PM (37 seconds ago) BookmarkIt's not a choice between only mass transit or only driving, it's a combination. But it's a combination some people seem really unwilling to entertain.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, March 11, 2011 4:01 PM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:02 (fourteen years ago)
like, for real, the problem isn't rural folks driving their trucks to town, or w/e. it's ppl ACTUALLY IN CITIES not making use of the infrastructure available, coupled with a general municipal disinterest in improving them.
if you gotta drive around for yr job, cool. if you don't HAVE to, then plz don't. TONS of ppl ~do not have to drive~
― ullr saves (gbx), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
but how else are they supposed to get those 50 gallons of soda home from the WalMart
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:06 (fourteen years ago)
you know the point where you realized you were being a dick in this thread? that was where you were supposed to dial it back
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:07 (fourteen years ago)
people drink soda and drive in san francisco
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:07 (fourteen years ago)
maybe we can make cars run on the hopes and dreams of americas working folk, toiling away (exclusively) in rural areas
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:10 (fourteen years ago)
this conversation was pretty cool & interesting imo
but a shocking turn by the guy known for wishing death on ppl
― J0rdan S., Friday, 11 March 2011 22:11 (fourteen years ago)
most people in the bay area don't live in its 2nd biggest city w/ shakey, they live in sprawly soda-drinkin areas. the bay area is relatively dense and will have a much easier time adapting its built landscape than most of america but that doesn't mean, at this point in time, people there can act like it's copenhagen.
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:15 (fourteen years ago)
won't cars become more fuel efficient? i mean if gas prices end up at $7 (essentially doubling) would it be a stretch to say that cars that get 50-60 mpg will be commonplace?
― brownie, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
My hometown is about four times the size of Manhattan and twice as large as San Francisco, with just under 400k people. It would take decades to build mass transit and light rail that served the entire area well enough to even vaguely resemble NY/SF/Chicago.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)
jeez can you imagine what might happen if San Francisco residents suddenly decide to chug Sprite on weekends?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:17 (fourteen years ago)
milo can i ask you--what do you see happening over the next 50-100 years in places like dallas-ft worth?
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:18 (fourteen years ago)
(and what would you like to see happen?)
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:19 (fourteen years ago)
fuel efficiency is going to go up, and electric cars will become more common. electric cars will be more convenient in urban centers because they'll have more charging stations.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:19 (fourteen years ago)
Shakey kinda dodged the part about his fresh, local produce still being loaded onto trucks and driven into the city. I'm pretty sure tripling gas prices on that might have some effect on all those Gentleman Farmers and the good-hearted people of San Francisco who eat the Right Way.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:20 (fourteen years ago)
a lot of futurist headz are convinced that the technology and cost of solar cells will bust out of 'alternative' status soon. if electric power becomes effectively free and zero-carbon (after manufacturing the panels themselves) then all this talk about gas-burning will go the way of whale oil. and everyone could go on being as non-dense as they like, but big-ass electric shitkicker pickups might takes some getting used-to...
― goole, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:21 (fourteen years ago)
Shakey kinda dodged the part about his fresh, local produce still being loaded onto trucks and driven into the city.
I don't see why you couldn't put that stuff on a lightrail lol
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:29 (fourteen years ago)
I've only been to Dallas a couple of times, but it seemed to me to be one of the worst cases of urban sprawl I've seen. I just don't see why building more and more freeways to accomodate more single-occupant drivers is seen as realistic and mass transit unrealistic. No, you won't have a Chicago-like system anytime soon, but decades from now, if government does nothing you'll still have... nothing. Mass transit doesn't replace cars, but it gets some of them off the highways, making more room for the trucks that deliver the fresh, local produce.
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:30 (fourteen years ago)
the US is going to always have road transit! jeez
self-driving vehicles are another huge breakthrough that i think we'll see in our lifetime. a lot of the benefits of train/mass transit w/o any new infrastructure needed. no more need for truckers tho :/
― goole, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:31 (fourteen years ago)
DFW will become more dense, but it's still a huge area. I'd like to see some kind of mass transit options that are useful for more people. Certainly better transit in the three poles of the area (Ft Worth, 500k people, Arlington 400k, Dallas, 1.x million). Electric cars, smaller cars in general, encouraging people to ride motorcycles inside the cities (coupled with more models of roadworthy bikes in the $2500-3000 range - buying a bike for $10k to save on gas doesn't make sense but buying one for $2500 might), more heavy rail for transport of goods (when you mentioned the 150 years of the US pre-car, most towns and rails were located on rivers or along railroads).
There are a ton of small steps to make things better, but it will take a long time and we'll never eliminate individual transport of some kind from the area.
But, you know, this is still Texas. Telling people to walk or bicycle to and from work is mildly absurd - no one can show up to the office soaked in sweat because they had a 20-minute ride when it was 90F at 8am, as it is here for half the year.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:32 (fourteen years ago)
And I would give up a kidney to live in Portland, Chicago or SF and never need a car again (specifically those places because I wouldn't need one, I've come to hate driving), but I have no money and no degree and I'm hemmed in by familial obligations to stick around.So when I see people arguing from a privileged position that people like me should just pack up and head for the city, it's pretty annoying. It's sort of insulting to just assume that people in driving cities don't have ties to their hometown or love for their community.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)
fyi, its 90 degrees in the summer in chicago too
― deej, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:36 (fourteen years ago)
my old boss used to show up to work all sweaty & in biker gear lol
― deej, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:37 (fourteen years ago)
nobody's said 'should just pack up and head for the city' (okay maybe they did and I forgot) the argument is generally 'may have to pack up and head for the city'
― iatee, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:38 (fourteen years ago)
you've read Shakey's fine contributions to this thread, right
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:39 (fourteen years ago)
i said that everyone should move to new hampshire, my apologies, though im right
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:41 (fourteen years ago)
I made a number of overly hyperbolic imperative statements, it's true
I regret nothing!http://arthive.scrippscollege.edu/2007_2008/ART_142/YOU_WILL-SP08/KSTATES/Hedonism_Bot.jpg
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 22:43 (fourteen years ago)
i definitely sympathize with the situation of americans who for one reason or another currently need to live in a city that's not very compatible with "green living". i do think that at some point they'll be "forced" to choose between (not by the forces of the antichrist spouting orwellian doublespeak, but by economic necessity) moving to a greener city or living a more impoverished life among dilapidated highways.
i feel greater sympathy with the hundreds of millions of climate refugees in the developing world who will live in misery, in part, because we couldn't manage to figure out a way to live that doesn't involve driving to every important destination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDRUXA9s854
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 22:59 (fourteen years ago)
again, emphasizing that i understand it's a big deal to adjust where you're living. i grew up in a very small town in missouri, i understand what it's like to live where driving is a necessity. it's a shitty situation, but the longer we put off somewhat painful actions, the more shitty it's going to be in the future. as a result of decades energy inaction, we're beginning to limit ourselves to a future where the only choices are between bad and worse.
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:02 (fourteen years ago)
move the yokels to the city
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:04 (fourteen years ago)
we couldn't manage to figure out a way to live that doesn't involve driving to every important destination.
It might help in that figuring out, just a bit, if conservatives weren't on an endless loop of no light rail, not giving up my 4x4, Smart Car = Stupid Car, we're not really running out of oil, global warming is a hoax, no light rail...
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:06 (fourteen years ago)
ZS is well aware of that, believe me
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:07 (fourteen years ago)
sigh
― Z S, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:08 (fourteen years ago)
i for one have enjoyed shakey's fine contributions to this discussion
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:13 (fourteen years ago)
1. I have friends and colleagues who live in various places in TX - DFW, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Waco - and several of them bike to work.
2. The solutions to show up to the office soaked in sweat because they had a 20-minute ride when it was 90F at 8am are many, from encouraging office parks and buildings to have locker/shower facilities on site for people who bike (and providing tax credits for same) to building bike centers downtown or in other areas where people can lock up their bikes safely all day, shower, etc., to other things I don't even know about. Cleveland, whose real peak biking season is (optimistically) May to October, is building just such a center, and its population just decreased by 17% in the latest census.
3. Yeah, it really sucks when public transport gets disincentivized. I bike to work for as long as I can during the year, but in the winter, Cleveland RTA becomes really inconvenient. The two nearest bus stops with downtown routes are about 1.5 miles away, which is a 20-minute walk in the winter (in what are often blizzard conditions), then either a 45-min bus ride that drops off about 2 blocks from my building, or a 10-15 min. ride to light rail, which is then a 20-minute trip downtown to Terminal Tower, then hopping on a circulator bus that comes every ten minutes or walking 12 blocks. I really don't need my 8 mile commute taking me an hour and a half.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:15 (fourteen years ago)
nice screen name
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:18 (fourteen years ago)
You are a poet.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:19 (fourteen years ago)
living a rural life w/ urban amenities
this is a thought-provoking turn of phrase
so like did you guys see the firefighters' run on the wisconsin bank that funded walker's campaign? people walking up to the counter and asking for cashier's checks for their entire life's savings
http://www.dane101.com/current/2011/03/10/firefighters_target_mi_bank_for_executive_support_of_walker
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:23 (fourteen years ago)
no one can show up to the office soaked in sweat because they had a 20-minute ride when it was 90F at 8am, as it is here for half the year.
i've shown up to work soaked in sweat just about every summer i've worked in Manhattan -- entirely using public transportation and walking. so does everyone else who does the same.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:27 (fourteen years ago)
― goole, Friday, March 11, 2011 10:21 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
I haven't read anything on the solar front that makes me think we're getting closer to what you're describing. Links?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:27 (fourteen years ago)
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, March 11, 2011 6:23 PM (5 minutes ago)
all if this money is headed for one of those famous progressive banks, i'm assuming
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:28 (fourteen years ago)
don't the firefighters/cops have a credit union?
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:35 (fourteen years ago)
Soros should offer to put it in his fund.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:35 (fourteen years ago)
they sure do, the firefighters at least
― adult music person (Jordan), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html
well it's kurzweil, don't really know what to make of that guy. i did say 'futurist headz'!
― goole, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:40 (fourteen years ago)
xpost The notion of on-site shower facilities at all offices and other workspaces is hilarious. We'd be driving less, but we'd be using more water, and we'd all have foot fungus.
Anecdotally, when Chicago started this big highway construction project, trains, buses and other public transportation was overwhelmed. I think they're accustomed to those with access not taking regular advantage, and, inevitably, those will less access and longer commutes getting their service cut. If anything, public transportation is the perennially the aspect of urban infrastructure most totally teetering on the brink.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
you can pretty much ignore anything Kurzweil says about anything
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:42 (fourteen years ago)
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, March 11, 2011 6:28 PM (11 minutes ago0
(1) gotta start somewhere/somehow; (2) as long as the new banks weren't big-time Walker contributors, not a problem.
― Nguyễn Phúc Bích (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:43 (fourteen years ago)
The notion of on-site shower facilities at all offices and other workspaces is hilarious.
Really? Its ridiculously common here. A lot of ppl cycle to work, and there's heaps of office bldgs with shower facils.
― one time, something happy craz (Trayce), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:49 (fourteen years ago)
we had one at my old office. this is fairly common at high-tech companies from what my friends tell me.
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:54 (fourteen years ago)
my office has one
MY HOME OFFICE
― max, Friday, 11 March 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)
how long is your commute though
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 March 2011 23:58 (fourteen years ago)
do you drive from your bedroom to your desk or what
"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he said. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years."
ok this guy is an idiot
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:02 (fourteen years ago)
you haven't even scratched the surface, believe me
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:06 (fourteen years ago)
his fantasy does kind of neatly sums up how far away solar is.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:10 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah there's a small gym and locker room/showers in my 19-floor office building. I use it all spring, summer and part of the fall.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:12 (fourteen years ago)
I dunno, solar industry is growing in leaps and bounds and it IS getting way more popular, but yeah, as people have been saying for 30 years, something more than consumer demand needs to happen to drive the price down
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:15 (fourteen years ago)
kevin i'm fairly certain it was the firefighters' version of what's often called a "boycott" rather than the inauguration of a new and socially responsible moral code of banking practice
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:17 (fourteen years ago)
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, March 12, 2011 12:15 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
I do have this hope that there must be some way to make the panels more efficient harvesters of energy. But there's no reason to think a eureka moment is around the corner.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:23 (fourteen years ago)
loads of people working on microfilm-thin panels or panels that act like leaves, that kind of thing. nothing mass produceable yet afaik tho so um... yeah
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
k3vin you commie bastard u
energy dudes maybe a "solve the energy problem" thread? kinda goin from current-events to broader-thoughts territory here, plus I feel like we already have a thread like that from when the current oil picture began to sour
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:35 (fourteen years ago)
there is an energy thread we could use a hsr thread tho
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:37 (fourteen years ago)
I was going to hype the energy thread earlier, too. Thread would benefit from all of these perspectives
― Z S, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:39 (fourteen years ago)
energy thread is usually just me and Z S and maybe like two other posters lol
nothing to see there, not important nope lol
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:40 (fourteen years ago)
Haha, yep. Usually (and to steer this back to us politics) it's like
God, the republicans are fucking monsters! The wrongness is astonishing!
*nods*
― Z S, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:43 (fourteen years ago)
lol yes
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:43 (fourteen years ago)
lol Shakes don't change. I'm gonna be in San Francisco this summer and we must get drinks -- provided you pick me up in a hybrid.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:46 (fourteen years ago)
I love o'hagan
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:48 (fourteen years ago)
my comment was needlessly snarky ignore me
btw i've enjoyed this discussion
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:48 (fourteen years ago)
Alfred you're coming to San Francisco? YAY!
― VegemiteGrrl, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:49 (fourteen years ago)
you drivin your suv out there, alfred?
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:50 (fourteen years ago)
haha my last comment was a leftover from the stereolab thread. Sorry I'm using zing and not used to it
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:50 (fourteen years ago)
I was attempting to say "FYI all mixed drinks in San Francisco have tofu in them"
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:51 (fourteen years ago)
I'm planning a trip this summer. I'll let you know so we can FAP.
I'm borrowing yours.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:53 (fourteen years ago)
I will ride my solar-powered heli-cycle
― VegemiteGrrl, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:53 (fourteen years ago)
(with backup avocado power pack)
― VegemiteGrrl, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:54 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.brianstoys.com/store/images/products/GIJoe/ARAH/New%20AFA%20Joes%20-%205/cobra_hiss.jpg
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:54 (fourteen years ago)
with kung fu grip!
― VegemiteGrrl, Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:55 (fourteen years ago)
Sen. Randy Hopper's Wife Tells Protesters Hopper Is Living with 25-year-old mistress in Madison
http://folkbum.blogspot.com/2011/03/sen-randy-hoppers-wife-tells-protesters.html
R-Fond du Lac
on wisconsin
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 01:51 (fourteen years ago)
lol pwnt
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 12 March 2011 02:16 (fourteen years ago)
omg lol
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Saturday, 12 March 2011 02:29 (fourteen years ago)
big-ass electric shitkicker pickups might takes some getting used-to...
^^^^sign me the fuck up, btw
― ullr saves (gbx), Saturday, 12 March 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)
Republicans this week revived a proposal that would allow Iowans to carry weapons in public without permission from a sheriff, without background checks and without training requirements.
A snafu during a legislative debate where a microphone was turned on captured banter between two Iowa GOP leaders, who also joked about a “give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill.”
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/03/10/house-republican-caught-on-tape-jokes-of-give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic-bill/
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 12:57 (fourteen years ago)
Thought this was interesting...
http://i53.tinypic.com/2dh5qba.png
― Z S, Saturday, 12 March 2011 15:59 (fourteen years ago)
These graphs are really interesting (I think). They show "belief" in global warming based on level of political interest, with liberals in solid and conservatives as the dotted line.
http://i54.tinypic.com/2mxpjdy.png
The takeaway:
Furthermore, the pattern of findings regarding global warming appears unique to the United States. In a host of countries where elites are not as divided on global warming, the pattern of polarization does not exist.
― Z S, Saturday, 12 March 2011 16:04 (fourteen years ago)
you college types with your graphs and charts
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 12 March 2011 16:20 (fourteen years ago)
sneering part of me wants to know how many high education level conservatives those samples cover, versus high education level liberals
and what counts as high education level, i.e. does just a JD or MBA or MD get you to the top quartile? Maybe that's just the third quartile, since belief in global warming goes up in the fourth quartile from the third.
― Euler, Saturday, 12 March 2011 16:55 (fourteen years ago)
I'd bet anything post-undergrad is lumped together, people w/ PhDs are gonna be too small a set
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)
yeah probably; but I'm also guessing that MBAs run very very very conservative, while JDs and MDs probably split somewhat more evenly, and PhDs obv run very liberal...i.e. not all "highly educated" folks ought to be lumped together in such a chart, but yeah o/w the samples are off.
― Euler, Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
exactly, I was actually typing up something similar - I'd bet MBAs are the plurality for GOP respondents and 'businesspeople' have their own short-sighted take on this issue.
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:08 (fourteen years ago)
cannot believe those fools are winning this debate
It's not just that the House GOP is pushing—-and will likely pass—-a bill that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating planet-warming emissions and nullify the agency's scientific finding that those gases endanger human health. Congressional Republicans have mounted an all-out assault on the EPA, pushing a lengthy list of measures to handcuff the agency from exercising its regulatory authority. For good measure, they are also trying to slash the agency's budget by a third.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/republican-epa-ambush
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
What sucks is that even obama's budget proposal includes cuts to the EPA (around 10% iirc). So no matter where the compromise lands, it'll be somewhere between 10 and 30%.
― Z S, Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:28 (fourteen years ago)
i marvel at the cognitive dissonance necessary to advocate draconian spending cuts so we won't burden our children with debt . . . but the globe's warming, the ice caps are melting? fuck it, we'll be dead before something bad happens
the hypocrisy is so pure it's almost beautiful
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:31 (fourteen years ago)
there's enough oil for the next 10 years or so, let's LIVE IT UP!
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:32 (fourteen years ago)
If only there was a way to address the deficit without these awful cuts that will impact the wellbeing of the next several generations!
I heard some crazy theory that we could restore the tax rate for the richest people back to what they used to be prior to the tax blowjob of the 2000s...but that would be ridiculous
― Z S, Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:32 (fourteen years ago)
that's socialism. socialism never works. kenya
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 17:59 (fourteen years ago)
what a fucking circus. RIP Tenn.
http://www.memphisflyer.com/JacksonBaker/archives/2011/03/10/fox-news-fair-and-balanced-and-mandatory-in-the-halls-of-the-legislature
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Saturday, 12 March 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
haha I should prob save my RIP. our legislature is about to go buck wild w/ guns, God and science.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Saturday, 12 March 2011 18:35 (fourteen years ago)
nothing creepy at all about fox in the statehouse. i hope they loop limbaugh all day over speakers in the crapper too
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, March 12, 2011 11:31 AM (50 minutes ago)
this is so OTM I want to tattoo it on my ultraconservative brother-in-law's face
― lowfat dry milquetoast (WmC), Saturday, 12 March 2011 18:52 (fourteen years ago)
i feel you. i have one of those brother-in-laws. he even looks like john boehner
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 18:57 (fourteen years ago)
I'm gonna quote it on my FB profile, see if I can get an argument out of him. He's been laying low for a few weeks, not taking the bait.
― lowfat dry milquetoast (WmC), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)
But the polar ice caps aren't melting, he'll respond.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:02 (fourteen years ago)
exactly, that argument only works if he's already accepting reality over his interpretation of reality
― iatee, Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
the closest i ever get with them is "climate change isn't our fault; the sun's getting hotter," or some bullshit
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
well, I can fight dirty -- "show your kids plenty of movies about cannibalism so they get used to the idea"
― lowfat dry milquetoast (WmC), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)
hmm, I dunno, that might be a bit much.
― lowfat dry milquetoast (WmC), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)
Really want to ask global warming deniers-- but what happens when we run out of oil?
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)
god will take care of it duh
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
the real fuck of it all is that these draconian spending cuts are likely to do very little wrt deficit unless the GOP is willing to come to the table on defense spending and upping revenue.
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:14 (fourteen years ago)
this utter fucking fascism in WI and MI is an order of magnitude more terrifying to me than any tsunami video
in all sincerity and in spite of cosmic unity, may they fucking eat shit
― acoleuthic, Monday, 14 March 2011 08:21 (fourteen years ago)
im probably more scared of the tsunami tbh
― max, Monday, 14 March 2011 08:28 (fourteen years ago)
nature isn't scary, we gotta coexist with it not regard it as our enemy. when it does shit like this it is horrible and unfortunate but not scary
when america starts slipping further towards being a balls-out fascist state, now that shit is fucking petrifying
― acoleuthic, Monday, 14 March 2011 08:31 (fourteen years ago)
These people get more noxious:
Bradley Manning whistleblower forced to resign by White House
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 March 2011 12:49 (fourteen years ago)
on the plus side, after this recent disaster in Japan, the US nuclear industry can kiss any dreams of building new plants in this country goodbye for the foreseeable future
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 March 2011 15:47 (fourteen years ago)
on the plus side for the coal industry at any rate
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 14 March 2011 15:52 (fourteen years ago)
glass half full of radiation/half full of coal
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 March 2011 15:55 (fourteen years ago)
or not -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/
Japan's nuclear powerplants have performed magnificently in the face of a disaster hugely greater than they were designed to withstand, remaining entirely safe throughout and sustaining only minor damage. The unfolding Fukushima story has enormously strengthened the case for advanced nations – including Japan – to build more nuclear powerplants, in the knowledge that no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, 14 March 2011 15:59 (fourteen years ago)
Pictured: US Coal Industry
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l619cbTMCH1qztjn5o1_500.gif
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Monday, 14 March 2011 16:00 (fourteen years ago)
the US nuclear industry can kiss any dreams of building new plants in this country goodbye for the foreseeable future
Not remotely confident of this!
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 March 2011 16:07 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/science/earth/14politics.html?_r=1&hp
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 March 2011 16:07 (fourteen years ago)
loool
Nuclear power, which still suffers from huge economic uncertainties and local concerns about safety, had been growing in acceptance as what appeared to many to be a relatively benign, proven and (if safe and permanent storage for wastes could be arranged) nonpolluting source of energy for the United States’ future growth.
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, 14 March 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
perhaps the answer is to outsource nuclear regulation to the private industry who will do it faster and cheaper with no red tape
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, 14 March 2011 16:12 (fourteen years ago)
tbf that article reckons that Chernobyl was pretty much nothing serious
― Jlloyd, I'm ready to be heartbroken (ken c), Monday, 14 March 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
Wall St Jrnl ed page naturally came out in favor of not "overreacting" vs nuke plants
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 March 2011 17:01 (fourteen years ago)
millionaires don't "feel rich"
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 March 2011 17:45 (fourteen years ago)
Setting the vexing problem of nuclear waste storage aside, the record of nuclear plants seems to be one of creating hugely expensive buildings and operating systems designed to prevent catastrophic radioactive releases of radioactive material, leading to an overall admirable saftey record, marred by intermittent catastrophic releases of radioactive material. Either no one gets harmed, or else hundreds of thousands do, with very little middle ground.
― Aimless, Monday, 14 March 2011 17:51 (fourteen years ago)
should be limited to scientific and space-related applications and banned from utility-scale generation imho
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 March 2011 17:57 (fourteen years ago)
once i had what i thought was one of those breakthrough ideas, so simple that no one had thought of it yet, and shouted so as to be heard over the music and gesturing angrily with my can of beer, "why don't we just send all the nuclear waste into the sun?! put it all into a spaceship and send it up! do it once a year, like takin out the trash!" and felt pretty pleased with my uncomebackable brilliance. and then my friend was like "what if something went wrong?"
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, 14 March 2011 18:02 (fourteen years ago)
^^^haha TH i have had the same flash of inspiration, all "god it's just so ~simple!" and then i pictured the challenger disaster but with a nuclear payload
― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 14 March 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)
that being said, once we build THE SPACE ELEVATOR, this is certainly what we will do
― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 14 March 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
after someone has sex in it
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Monday, 14 March 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 March 2011 18:27 (fourteen years ago)
but yes obviously space is the place for nuclear waste
haha tracer
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Monday, 14 March 2011 18:33 (fourteen years ago)
Can't we just send our nuclear waste over to developing countries, just like we export other kinds of pollution?
― Z S, Monday, 14 March 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
The saga of the "Wisconsin 14" -- the state Senate Democrats who fled the state in an attempt to block the three-fifths budget quorum on Gov. Scott Walker's anti-public employee union proposals -- isn't over just because Republicans used a parliamentary end run to pass the bill with a simple majority quorum last week, and the Dems have since come home.As WisPolitics reports, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) sent a letter to his fellow Republicans, reminding them that they had previously found the Democrats to be in contempt of the chamber -- and as such, they are not to be allowed to vote on committees:Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats' votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.
As WisPolitics reports, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) sent a letter to his fellow Republicans, reminding them that they had previously found the Democrats to be in contempt of the chamber -- and as such, they are not to be allowed to vote on committees:
Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats' votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Monday, 14 March 2011 23:43 (fourteen years ago)
Man, f Scott Fitzgerald.
― reggaeton for the painfully alone (polyphonic), Monday, 14 March 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
― goole, Monday, 14 March 2011 23:46 (fourteen years ago)
thats a victory
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 00:44 (fourteen years ago)
these fuckin' guys
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 00:47 (fourteen years ago)
fuckin a
― j., Tuesday, 15 March 2011 04:03 (fourteen years ago)
http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087
Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.
― by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 05:52 (fourteen years ago)
oh whoops, already posted.
i'm not one for hyperbole but seriously has my state been taken over by fascists or what? terrifying.
― by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 05:54 (fourteen years ago)
MSNBC was airing footage last night of old campaign trail Obama who said he would walk with any union workers who were facing threats of having their collective bargaining rights taken away, and contrasting that with 2011 Obama who has not visited Wisconsin.
They were also second-guessing his pragmatic gun-control essay in an Arizona paper that merely asks for tightening loopholes but does not argue for banning large gun bullet-holding magazines.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 13:36 (fourteen years ago)
in other news, exciting doings in me and aerosmith's hometown
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 15:26 (fourteen years ago)
I know it's been a busy couple of weeks, but seriously -- where is Obama on this.
The Travesty of Justice youtube clip is just sitting there stuck at 73,000 hits, the most blatant evidence that the elected officials who commandeered the Tea Party platform are a bunch of thugs. Why isn't it being linked to everywhere? I almost can't trust that number of 73,000 -- the 100,000 people who demonstrated last weekend don't even need to watch it, they know, but you think those crowds alone would get the word out
I mean one carefully centered speech breaking down that Walker cut $130 million in tax breaks to corporations, and that he's using an underground tunnel that connects to the capitol from one of the corporate banks that funded his campaign to get his friends in and out past the protestors... why is this not being broken down?
― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
that he's using an underground tunnel that connects to the capitol from one of the corporate banks that funded his campaign to get his friends in and out past the protestors... why is this not being broken down?
!
where'd you hear this? i missed that one and i'm here in madison.
― adult music person (Jordan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:24 (fourteen years ago)
HuffPo
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
thanks Laurel
These executives didn't just contribute to Scott Walker's campaign. They also helped the governor avoid the press -- and his own constituents -- by letting him use their bank's underground tunnel, which leads directly from its parking lot into the Capitol Building in Madison. Using it for this purpose may have been a violation of the bank's own Code of Business Ethics.
That tunnel's not just a convenient way to help a political crony. It's also one heck of a metaphor.
― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:34 (fourteen years ago)
As Mary Bottari reported, the bank has been letting the Governor ferry himself and a number of his lobbyist friends to the Capitol through that underground tunnel. (Are they sure it doesn't lead to the River Styx?)
LOLOL
― Hodge Podge Bodge, Peo-PLE! (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:47 (fourteen years ago)
Meanwhile in Ohio:
COLUMBUS: Reporters have been told they will not be allowed to broadcast sound and images from the Tuesday release of Ohio Gov. John Kasich's budget plan.
Spokeswoman Connie Wehrkamp says journalists can bring only pens, notepads and tape recorders to the afternoon briefing, where Kasich is to announce the first details of his state spending blueprint for the next two years. She says videos and photos will be prohibited and the audio may not be used for anything but checking accuracy.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:48 (fourteen years ago)
i actually think it's kind of dope that there's an underground tunnel, i've been trying to find one between my pharmacy building and the nearby chemistry building on campus for over a year now
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:49 (fourteen years ago)
there's one between the pharm and physics building so guess who stays dry when it's raining when he goes to the physics cafe for lunch, this guy
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:50 (fourteen years ago)
man, we should have a thread for underground tunnels; there's a network in manchester, england, built in cold-war panic (and made redundant soon after by superior bombs) that's pretty much derelict, used for phone cables, etc, but that lies underground at all these key spots of the town, is accessible from a few really disparate, inconspicuous overground locations, etc.
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:53 (fourteen years ago)
univ of mn-duluth is pretty much entirely navigable by underground tunnel iirc. hella cold up there in the winter.
see also the Amazing Skyways of Downtown Minneapolis!!
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:57 (fourteen years ago)
pretty sure skyways get a different thread
― your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
DC protest vs Obama's War on Sat in DC, and in support of Bradley Manning in Quantico on Sun:
http://www.bradleymanning.org/16125/rally-for-bradley-quanitco-virginia-sun-march-20/
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 18:09 (fourteen years ago)
I wasn't actually Upland man - I claim one town over, on the LA County side
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 18:14 (fourteen years ago)
Why isn't it being linked to everywhere?
because glenn beck is awesome!
http://gawker.com/#!5781996/did-glenn-beck-just-blame-the-japanese-quake-on-radical-islam
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 18:31 (fourteen years ago)
heretic
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)
xpost - Charlie Sheen makes more sense than Beck these days.
― Partyin', partyin', fun fun fun fun (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:21 (fourteen years ago)
Levin's latest manifesto: the hate for Sarah Palin.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)
that reads like the death warrant from a show trial
― goole, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:57 (fourteen years ago)
Apparently Levin, Krauthammer, Will, and Wehner are sparring over "unserious Republicans."
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:04 (fourteen years ago)
The Duluth News Tribune reports that on Saturday night, Walker attended a fundraiser, but was met by perhaps as many as 5,000 protesters, which according to the Duluth News Tribune was "probably at least double the size of Washburn, which has a population of 2,271."
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12483
― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)
This week's Economist kind of cautiously suggested that GOP governors are overplaying their hands against the unions and are facing backlash.
― for real molars who ain't got no fillings (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:14 (fourteen years ago)
gee ya think
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
US politics is pretty much alternating backlashes
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:22 (fourteen years ago)
hence Matt Taibbi's prediction of a Dem sweep in 2012, followed by 4 years of... nothing
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah I just thought it might have been significant that even The Economist was making that case, although I know they're more euro-style conservative which is an animal I don't fully have a handle on.
― for real molars who ain't got no fillings (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
Economist is straight up Liberal in the European sense of the word; i.e. the more able people are to buy stuff the better we all are
war = bad - dead people don't buy stuffhealthcare = good - sick people don't buy stuff and they buy less if served by an inefficient healthcare systemcorruption = bad - that money should be used for buying stuffgay marriage = who cares - but buying wedding presents is good for the economy
exceedingly facile interpretation, but you get my drift
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
this is more or less going to happen (what constitutes "nothing" obviously being open to question)
― garage rock is usually very land-based (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
yep I think you are spot on. also explains why I find them alternately craven/annoying
LOLLLLLL, Ed - pls tell me you're schooling P'burgh on true meaning of 'liberal'.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
So are unions = good because people who make more money buy more stuff or = bad because you have to pay them more money?
― for real molars who ain't got no fillings (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)
I think they are in favour of a prosperous, well paid consumer class and see the unions' role in developing this, but they have been pretty hard on unions being impediments to change or blind to changed realities. There doesn't seem to be any idealogical line on it but I would say that they prefer a collaborative german union or a post-thatcher british one to the UAW.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
war = bad - dead people don't buy stuff
not always. sometimes war can open up markets for more people to buy stuff. and the economist would rather have the odd military debacle than have the usa turn inward.
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:00 (fourteen years ago)
like I said, pretty facile. They were much more pro war in Afghanistan than Iraq, Afghanis were in no position to buy much of anything under the Taliban.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)
morbs otm
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:34 (fourteen years ago)
healthcare = good - sick people don't buy stuff and they buy less if served by an inefficient healthcare system
think of the greeting card industry!
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:36 (fourteen years ago)
Flowers, tombstones, etc.
― Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)
Economist is straight up Liberal in the European sense of the word; i.e. the more able people are to buy stuff the better we all arewar = bad - dead people don't buy stuffhealthcare = good - sick people don't buy stuff and they buy less if served by an inefficient healthcare systemcorruption = bad - that money should be used for buying stuffgay marriage = who cares - but buying wedding presents is good for the economyexceedingly facile interpretation, but you get my drift― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
this is basically how i've always thought of the economist tbh
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:14 (fourteen years ago)
so there you gohttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/every-single-goper-on-house-energy-cmte-wont-say-climate-change-is-real.php
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:24 (fourteen years ago)
oh my fucking god
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:41 (fourteen years ago)
it's true tho Shakey, I never lived in Upland - 91711 is my turf
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:01 (fourteen years ago)
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on Democrats walkout
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c43KXC1Dvnc&feature=player_embedded
I don't know what the logic is in saying "no, we're not going to show up and vote" -- that's not democracy. That's not what this building is about, that's not what this chamber is about, y'know with as many people that showed up this week and voiced their opinion on this bill, on both sides of it, obviously it's been lopsided but on both sides, I'm just not sure why the democrats would use this ploy now to try and certainly delay what ultimately is going to have to be dealt with, which is the final passage of this bill.
it is beyond hilarious to read every word of him saying this, and then to actually hear him saying this into a microphone over the din of several thousand people riotously chanting to the sound of bagpipes in the background
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:10 (fourteen years ago)
so gonna get recalled
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:15 (fourteen years ago)
Hope so
Uploaded by wisconsinreporter on Feb 17, 2011 1,187 views
Seems... low.
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:24 (fourteen years ago)
Ohio governor John Kasich continues the Republican war on the middle class, with his new budget, which includes:
The Local Government Fund is cut by $555 million in the $120 billion, two-year budget which amounts to a 25 percent cut in the first year and a 50 percent cut in the second year. Additionally, the Kasich budget makes tax policy changes raiding a trio of reimbursement fund payments that local governments and schools receive, costing the entities roughly $1.3 billion. . . . . . . Kasich's budget also includes extensive privatization moves, including selling off five state prisons for $200 million and the leasing of the state's liquor distribution network to JobsOhio, Kasich's private development board. . . . The main payment made by the state to school districts -- known as the state's foundation formula -- goes up slightly in Kasich's budget -- 1.4 percent in 2012 and 1.3 percent in 2013.However, the total amount that school districts get drops by 11.5 percent in 2012, and 4.9 percent in 2013. That adds up to a drop of $3.14 billion over both years combined -- a sum that includes the loss from the tax policy changes as well as the loss of federal stimulus funds used to prop up the current budget.Library funding under Kasich's plan drops by 5 percent each year for a total cut of $168 million over both years. . . . At the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the state's largest single agency, a $6 million pot of money for funding children's hospitals is zeroed out.
. . . Kasich's budget also includes extensive privatization moves, including selling off five state prisons for $200 million and the leasing of the state's liquor distribution network to JobsOhio, Kasich's private development board.
. . . The main payment made by the state to school districts -- known as the state's foundation formula -- goes up slightly in Kasich's budget -- 1.4 percent in 2012 and 1.3 percent in 2013.However, the total amount that school districts get drops by 11.5 percent in 2012, and 4.9 percent in 2013. That adds up to a drop of $3.14 billion over both years combined -- a sum that includes the loss from the tax policy changes as well as the loss of federal stimulus funds used to prop up the current budget.Library funding under Kasich's plan drops by 5 percent each year for a total cut of $168 million over both years.
. . . At the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the state's largest single agency, a $6 million pot of money for funding children's hospitals is zeroed out.
John Kasich, by the way, just managed to come up with several tens of millions of dollars in tax bribes, er, incentives to keep American Greetings Corp., which posted $80 million in net earnings last fiscal year, in Northeast Ohio. They had threatened to move because the city in which they are headquartered recently passed a 0.5% income tax increase.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:41 (fourteen years ago)
ALso, John Kasich, after being elected Governor, decided to live at his home rather than the governor's mansion, so his daughters could remain at their school. This requires Ohio taxpayers paying for millions of dollars in security upgrades and round-the-clock State Highway Patrol protection at his private home, while still paying for and staffing the governor's mansion for official events.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:45 (fourteen years ago)
so strange, but i love how minnesota is the 'fuck you' to wisconsin, michigan, and ohio right now
http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/117980674.html
A Republican plan to cut income taxes across the board encountered heavy opposition Monday, with Gov. Mark Dayton hammering at the GOP for proposing tax cuts when the state faces a massive deficit.
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 00:57 (fourteen years ago)
so miami's mayor got recalled?
― max, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:48 (fourteen years ago)
thanks to the efforts of a billionaire anti-tax advocate, of course
i'm gonna run for mayor
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:53 (fourteen years ago)
To be quite fair, our mayer is a scumbag with a history of terrible political decisions. I voted against it because voters should accept the consequences of their actions.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:53 (fourteen years ago)
*mayor
would you vote for Jordan y/n
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)
If I were his chief of staff.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:56 (fourteen years ago)
Here's how Carlos Alvarez sucked.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:57 (fourteen years ago)
I would not look at Miami as an example of what's happening nationally. As usual we play our own games.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:59 (fourteen years ago)
alfred you could be my chief of staff
the guy that wrote that post is cool
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 16 March 2011 02:02 (fourteen years ago)
"Actually, Castro and him are pretty much even, to tell you the truth."
gotta love miami
lol norman braman i should've figured
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 16 March 2011 02:04 (fourteen years ago)
Catholic Santorum appalled by Catholic JFK's support for separation of church and state
http://blog.au.org/2011/03/16/slander-from-santorum-former-senator-once-again-proves-that-he%E2%80%99s-no-jack-kennedy/
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:33 (fourteen years ago)
ha, go ahead and try to win Catholics over by dissing JFK, Mr. Santorum, that'll go over awesome with the demographic you're trying to court
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:47 (fourteen years ago)
"I'd like to thank my Catholic base for their support, and to repeat my assertion that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:48 (fourteen years ago)
Wait, Catholics think MARY was ALSO immaculately conceived??? What a bunch of crazypants.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:50 (fourteen years ago)
that's what "immaculate conception" means. Jesus isn't immaculately conceived because He isn't conceived at all, He's placed in the body of the Virgin Mary, who Herself must be without stain to carry God inside her, hence the doctrine of immaculate conception.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:52 (fourteen years ago)
Asked by one man about "gay and transsexual activists" raising money for Democrats, Santorum said they had money to give away because "most of them don't have kids.''
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:53 (fourteen years ago)
xp "immaculate conception" means "conceived free from original sin," not "virgin conception/birth."
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:54 (fourteen years ago)
The details of this have either never crossed over to Protestantism or I have just never noticed the distinction. But I'm PRETTY sure that I've always heard Christ referenced as the product of the "immaculate conception." So weird -- thanks, ILX!
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:56 (fourteen years ago)
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 16:56 (fourteen years ago)
jd & Phil carryin' the theology ball
I mean, u Protestants don't even bleeve in transubstantiation, call when you get serious.
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)
the feast day of the Immaculate Conception celebrates Mary's, not Jesus'.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
yeah - non-Catholics (or Catholics who slept through CCD, i.e., 3/4 of us) hear the term and think about how Jesus is supposed to be without sin and add 2 + 2, but it's a doctrinal term rooted in the things the Church fathers liked to think about. ("All creatures are born in sin, but how can Christ be born without sin if he was carried 9 months in a sinful human being? He can't, but He's God, therefore His Mother must be without sin, how do we get to that" and the answer is "philosophical gymnastics.") Protestants do not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived; that is how you know they're going to Hell.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
Can't understand Protestantism. If you wanna believe in God, you might as well go whole hog and accept rituals: beautiful robes, saints, stained glass windows, feast days, and pedophile priests.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:08 (fourteen years ago)
So not only is Mary's vagina not good enough in the box it came in, neither is the rest of her. Not at all out of character for the Church, but charming nonetheless.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:09 (fourteen years ago)
Well no! Mary's is awesome! It's the only one that's truly awesome iirc
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:09 (fourteen years ago)
she was so pure she was assumed into heaven body and soul (feast day: Aug. 15).
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)
move to call next politics thread "US Politics: The Vagina of the Blessed Virgin Mary"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)
No it's only awesome because it actually belongs to God. It is God's vagina. In a woman's body, which means she doesn't actually have one of her own. But as it turns out, her body isn't her own, either, so no problem!!
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)
Rick Santorum can make a pure vagina out of a sow's ear and a Pepsi can.
and yeah Alfred OTM, I don't know how many Protestants know that but the Catholic teaching is that She did not die. She just went up.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:11 (fourteen years ago)
wait so it was mary's MOM who got impregnated by the lord??
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:11 (fourteen years ago)
Yes -- Anne and Joachim were Mary's parents.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:11 (fourteen years ago)
Mary's mom got impregnated by God's vagina
thanking u, ILX
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:11 (fourteen years ago)
For some reason I know about the assumption thing, Mary and Methuselah and one of the E's being the lucky few.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:12 (fourteen years ago)
Enoch
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:12 (fourteen years ago)
"he walked with the Lord"
Oh I meant Elijah. But add Enoch to my impromptu list.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:13 (fourteen years ago)
And strike Methusy, as it turns out. Must have confused him with Enoch.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)
mary: joseph, i have something to tell you
joseph (burping): yeah?
mary: i'm pregnant
joseph: wha
mary: now i know what you're thinking
joseph: ooh i'm gonna kill you girl
mary: no, no - it was the lord who did it
joseph: ohhhhhh! like when he got your mom pregnant
mary: no, not exactly
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)
the one thing you can say about Catholicism Laurel is that it does, in placing Mary within the holy family, leave some room for "woman's space" not only within the tradition but in veneration. Protestants look up to the skies and worship men alone; Catholics can talk to Mary and ask Her to talk to God for them. Now, you're right to say that parts of her womanhood -- specifically, her sexuality -- are placed outside Her holiness, but I'd argue that that's true of men in the tradition, too: it's not specifically women's sexuality that the tradition places outside the things-that-are-holy-and-worthy basket, it's sexuality full-stop. Jesus's penis doesn't get any more play than Mary's vagina.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)
brb, going to Hell
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:08 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
anglicans have all these things!
― max, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:15 (fourteen years ago)
The most comforting part of my adolescent Catholicism was the figure of Mary; she seemed accessible and warm in ways that much of the religion wasn't.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:16 (fourteen years ago)
btw in re: Mary's parents:
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=22
why I still can't shake the Church: "By tradition Joachim and Anne are considered to be the names of the parents of Mary, the Mother of God. We have no historical evidence, however, of any elements of their lives, including their names. Any stories about Mary's father and mother come to us through legend and tradition." HEY WAIT THIS SOUNDS LIKE SANE PPL TALKIN, WTF
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:16 (fourteen years ago)
"woman's space"
i have always referred to this as "the cooter"
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:16 (fourteen years ago)
btw Anglicans invented false metal, do not want
No pope, no credibility.
ugh Tracer must you
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
I CAN'T HELP IT I WAS BORN INTO SIN
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
I'm not sure "hey this is just legend and tradition" is the church's official position
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:17 (fourteen years ago)
Frankly the veneration of Mary as God both subsumes her human female-ness into his male-ness (nominally God is neither but we all know that's not how it really works), so she's not really a woman with womanly powers anyway, and also is bad for women because they, by BEING human, will always fall short of Mary's example. But whatevs. I was semi-interested in Marian theology for a while but it's just as much of a sham as the rest, in the end.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:18 (fourteen years ago)
Lots of things in the Church comes to us through Legend and Tradition though – that's precisely what upset Protestants.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:18 (fourteen years ago)
yeah but that also helps them feel like protestantism isn't filled with legend and tradition, just in different ways
― iatee, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:20 (fourteen years ago)
after we do this can we do the holy ghost?
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:20 (fourteen years ago)
Also, a propos of the use of the term "woman's space", I had EXTREMELY INTERESTING convo with ilx's own rrrobyn last night about how female anatomy is NOT IN FACT MADE UP OF EMPTY SPACES that passively wait to accept some active component. Forget all those anatomy textbooks that show emptiness/openness, that shit was all filled in and doing stuff up until you got there, and when you leave it will resume normal stuff again.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:21 (fourteen years ago)
actually official Church literature is riddled with stuff that might shock you as far as what they concede is legend, tradition, nonsense, etc. Buy The New Jerusalem Bible and read the footnotes in the Pentateuch, the Church kinda does not fuck around w/that stuff, Catholics invented intellectualism you know
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
man NO ONE EVER GAVE ME A GOOD EXPLANATION. Every religion teacher, up to the moment of my Confirmation, was flummoxed. "Lesse, you guys know God The Father, and we've studied God The Son, and as for The Holy Spirit, well, see..." whereupon they start quoting Ben Kenobi in the first Star Wars.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
xp to self Sorry, Christianity makes me angry.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:22 (fourteen years ago)
Can we have a seperate thread? I say this not to moan about talking on the wrong thread but to encourage this discussion that I really, really am enjoying reading.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:23 (fourteen years ago)
Ha -- now that my daughter is 22, has graduated from college and I'm going to lose that exemption, my tax bill is about to go up. I need some new kids to keep money in my pocket. (note: I know that's not really how it works)
― lowfat dry milquetoast (WmC), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:23 (fourteen years ago)
Done.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:26 (fourteen years ago)
I want to make about a bazillion horrible jokes centered around "that shit was all filled in" but none of them are working
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:27 (fourteen years ago)
Pray on it.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:28 (fourteen years ago)
images of Spackle dancing in my head
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:28 (fourteen years ago)
Youre not trying Dan...this should come to you so easily!
― VegemiteGrrl, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:33 (fourteen years ago)
there's also a terrible Craig David joke lurking in there
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:34 (fourteen years ago)
oof
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:34 (fourteen years ago)
pack it up, pack it in, let dan begin
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:35 (fourteen years ago)
I came to winBut the vagina's filled in
― ancient, but very sexy (DJP), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:36 (fourteen years ago)
mary wasn't the product of a virgin birth, just just that at the moment of her conception God granted her the grace that is supposed to be conferred at baptism. different deal.
― goole, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:49 (fourteen years ago)
man Catholicism is so goddamn silly
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)
um uh, not to change the subject or anything, but how about Santorum also trying to deny the fact that Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state," and or claim he did not mean it. Santorum tried to rewrite Jefferson's role as well as bashing Kennedy in his speech.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)
Here is an easy flow chart for all things Santorum:
Are you Rick Santorum? No ----------------> OK, everything is chill Yes ---------------> UR DOING IT WRONG
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:01 (fourteen years ago)
yeah but that also helps them feel like protestantism isn't filled with legend and tradition, just in different way
no, it's actually demonstrably the case that there's less scriptural fundamentalism within Catholic tradition than in Protestant tradition, which is largely founded on the primacy of Scripture, but believe whatever makes you happy is my opinion so feel free to think Catholics don't have a somewhat saner take on the Bible
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:04 (fourteen years ago)
Santorum also trying to deny the fact that Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state,"
This is not just Santorum fyi, this has become a very common meme among the far right in general. (see Christine O'Donnell, Rushbo et al.)
― Partyin', partyin', fun fun fun fun (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:07 (fourteen years ago)
(oh sorry, didn't see that we'd moved the god-talk to another thread)
― goole, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:08 (fourteen years ago)
oh now this is interesting:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/barbour-floats-anti-afghan-war-platform.php
republican anti-war sentiment being channelled by Barbour and Huckabee.
― goole, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:47 (fourteen years ago)
the social conservatives don't see much point in trying to 'develop' these particular countries?
think of the libya situation, the split on the left looks like it's between anti-imperialist thinking and moral interventionist thinking.
on the right, i don't quite get it. there are principled anti-interventionists and isolationists like Larison and those few libertarians who talk about war, but those have got to be a tiny number of the conservative electorate.
the country is now two-thirds skeptical or against the afghanistan war, so without numbers in front of me, i'll have to assume that a ton of conservatives are in that category, for whatever reason. maybe the old-line 'who cares, leave 'em alone' sentiment has always been stronger than we've thought, the cold war notwithsanding.
― goole, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:59 (fourteen years ago)
I'm not sure this isn't just branding this "Obama's War and we're against it."
― Partyin', partyin', fun fun fun fun (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
The intervenisionists are a small number consisting of the usual suspects, and even the right has thetir number. The worst of the Corner comment trolls scoffed at Lindsey Graham's latest communique this morning.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)
yeah it's so incredibly idiotic. there's a whole thing about what the founders really meant was a "one-way wall" that protects the church from the state, allows for the church to maintain it's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, BUT gives the church free reign to spend untold amounts of money and influence affecting public policy, inserting their doctrines into public schools, etc. because American evangelicals are now officially God's new Chosen People and they are carrying on the Jesus-Patriot traditions of the founders. so nyah.
what's interesting is that old time religious conservatives (e.g., old skool So. Baptists) were some of the most ardent supporters of the 'separation of church & state', because they understood that if the church were to exert undue influence in the political arena/ public sphere while trying to maintain their tax-exempt status, then there's always the flipside fear that some 'well-meaning' bureaucrat could come in and tell churches they have to follow affirmative action hiring practices, or perhaps perform gay wedding ceremonies. (those are of course modern fears, but you know what i'm sayin)
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
not that i am Expert in All Things Catholic, but Santorum's views on church-state separation are not even close to being mainstream among American Catholics (not even the really religious ones). even the old-school religious Catholics remember the crap that JFK had to put up with on this issue.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:25 (fourteen years ago)
lotta righties smell blood when they think about trying to win the Church over for the GOP, they view abortion as their big chance
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:28 (fourteen years ago)
i USED to think that the Church and Catholics would see through such overtures - esp. since if theocracy were to come to America it would most likely be a Protestant evangelical sort of theocracy (and most Catholics react to evangelicalism the way that epileptics react to flashing lights).
considering this past election, however, i'm not so sure (considering all of the Teabagger antics).
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:32 (fourteen years ago)
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/04/dod-passes-the-buck-rather-than-let-kucinich-to-visit-bradley-manning/
Congressman Kucinich getting the run-around from the military re his request to visit Bradley Manning
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 20:17 (fourteen years ago)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/clinton-running-for-president/
Blitzer sat down with the former 2008 presidential candidate in Cairo.
Full transcript:
Click to watch video
Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?
No
Q- Would you like to serve as secretary of defense?
Q- Would you like to be vice president of the United States?
Q- Would you like to be president of the United States?
― goole, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)
pimp shit
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:15 (fourteen years ago)
She also tells Blitzer she wants to be a wife and mother again, and "to give Bill the best blowjobs he's had since 1997."
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:17 (fourteen years ago)
J0rdan made me lol
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:47 (fourteen years ago)
lol otm
― gr8080, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:48 (fourteen years ago)
misleading url
― bnw, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)
Republicans replaced congressional cafeteria's compostable plates, cups and "silverware" with foam cups and forks. Just being dicks.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 March 2011 01:37 (fourteen years ago)
probably kochware in the caf now
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 17 March 2011 01:59 (fourteen years ago)
That should have been "plastic forks," btw. Supposedly there were complaints it was hard to stab lettuce with the "green" forks (which is ironic on several levels).
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 March 2011 02:34 (fourteen years ago)
republicans eat salad?
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 17 March 2011 02:37 (fourteen years ago)
I wonder if it's hard to stab Boehner in the eye with a green fork.
(or Debbie Stabenow, for that matter)
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 March 2011 03:28 (fourteen years ago)
given all the depressing lies of the new gop administrations in wisco, michigan, iowa, and ohio, it's a breath of fresh air that at least minnesota's having a rational budgetary discussion in the midwest
http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118136484.html
"Minnesota's tax system is more regressive than it was a decade ago," acting Revenue Commissioner Dan Salomone said Wednesday. "Despite a slight improvement over the last study, the system remains notably more regressive than the historical average since 1991." The study found that 90 percent of the state's earners paid an average of 12.3 percent of their income in state and local taxes in 2008. The wealthiest 10 percent of households earning more than $130,000 paid an average of 10.3 percent.
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 17 March 2011 14:07 (fourteen years ago)
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFivQYjC
Also:
Weiner objected to consideration of the bill, saying it violates a House rule, "which requires 72 hour layover of the bill and it to be electronically noticed in order for it to be considered by the House." He continued, "This bill did not lay over for 72 hours. It was noticed at 1:42 p.m. on Tuesday. Therefore it has to wait until 1:42 on Friday to be in compliance with the rules of the House."The House vote on the bill was expected mid-afternoon on Thursday.Weiner then held up a sign with a quote from House Speaker John Boehner and read aloud, "I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours." He then prodded Republican Rep. Ted Poe, Texas, who was sitting in the chair, "Would the Speaker please clarify for the body that the 72 hours rule is either being waived or does not exist?"Poe responded that the rule is not predicated on a number of hours, "but rather on a number of calendar days." He said that since the measure had been electronically available online since Tuesday, that would constitute three calendar days, thus not breaking any rules.Weiner pushed a little further asking Poe to clarify, "Did this bill age for 72 hours? Yes or no?"The Speaker said, he would not respond to hypothetical questions.
The House vote on the bill was expected mid-afternoon on Thursday.
Weiner then held up a sign with a quote from House Speaker John Boehner and read aloud, "I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours." He then prodded Republican Rep. Ted Poe, Texas, who was sitting in the chair, "Would the Speaker please clarify for the body that the 72 hours rule is either being waived or does not exist?"
Poe responded that the rule is not predicated on a number of hours, "but rather on a number of calendar days." He said that since the measure had been electronically available online since Tuesday, that would constitute three calendar days, thus not breaking any rules.
Weiner pushed a little further asking Poe to clarify, "Did this bill age for 72 hours? Yes or no?"
The Speaker said, he would not respond to hypothetical questions.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
Whoops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFivQYjC-Q
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:20 (fourteen years ago)
lol omg the ramp-up in the sarcasm as it continues is just awesome. "kudos to you!"
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:25 (fourteen years ago)
dude's still a dick
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)
weiner is pretty much the best for being the a real rabble rousing dem now that alan greyson is long gone (also despite his all out protection of isreal) -- his dickishness is a point in his favor in this regard
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)
iatee you've probably spelled it out before but why don't you like this guy?
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)
Greyson was funnier imho
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)
he's made it clear that he wants to be mayor of nyc and he's basically a suburban-republican when it comes to urban/land-use stuff. he's okay on a national level.
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:35 (fourteen years ago)
yeah a salon article somewhere argued that weiner was a pretty dull rahm-era democrat but has since found angry new york liberals to be an underserved constituency both in the house and in the media. which they are! so, i guess i can't really complain.
― goole, Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:39 (fourteen years ago)
even when I agree with him, he still comes off as irritating
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:40 (fourteen years ago)
hes way to the right on israel + (apparently) wants to tear up all of nyc's bike lanes
― max, Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:45 (fourteen years ago)
Weiner is a grandstanding phony
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:48 (fourteen years ago)
I enjoy his grandstanding but if Morbs doesn't like him I suspect I agree w/Morbs
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:52 (fourteen years ago)
Stay strong, Mr. Tyler.
― Ian Curtis danced like a tortured chicken DO U SEE (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:52 (fourteen years ago)
the weiner dog is also one of those responsible for the easing of NYC's rent-control laws. he is to the right of the Likud when it comes to Israeli-related matters, and he was one of the people involved in the israeli/palestinian censorship thing at Columbia six years back. and (most damningly) gabbneb liked him.
so i lean towards "grandstanding phony" -- though i'll take anyone willing to talk shit back to the Teabaggers at this point, even if it is Son of Chucky.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
this is a case of Morbz bein OTM imho
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
it's just that Morbs & I come I think from the same deep-pinko sorta background - I'm really susceptible to compelling rhetoric though, I mean I even voted for Obama
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
I don't see how being rightwing on Israel makes his positions on other matters phony.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)
iirc he's rightwing on israel in a kneejerk clueless way
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 20:56 (fourteen years ago)
good point ... i smelled a rat when i read that he supported so-called "luxury decontrol" when he was an NYC councilman in the 1990s (which led to a decrease in rent-controlled apartments). his voting record on middle/working-class issues in the House is pretty strong, though.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:06 (fourteen years ago)
Most Dems and Republicans are!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)
wants to tear up all of nyc's bike lanes
well then I say good day to you sir
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:08 (fourteen years ago)
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:52 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
grandstanding an aesthetic preference rather than a principle then lol
― D-40, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)
I agree! but it also disqualifies him from being perfect-new-progressive-hero
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:16 (fourteen years ago)
he's okay as new-democrat-tv-asshole
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:17 (fourteen years ago)
no politician is going to be perfect, i understand that. the "rah-rah israel right or wrong" i chalk up to his being Jewish. when Weiner falls down on issues that affect middle-class people (such as supporting rent decontrol) when he's touted as a "hero of the middle class," though, that's a little tougher to explain away.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:20 (fourteen years ago)
and though it's kneejerk and mean, i always smell a rat whenever a given Democratic politico gets much love from Gabbneb -- sorry, but that's how I roll.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:22 (fourteen years ago)
I'm with you. I figure belief in Israel, Yahweh, and procreative sex are prerequisites for elective office.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
The Big Pinko
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:25 (fourteen years ago)
^^^ belief in pussy
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
regardless, outside of being tv-asshole his only serious future in politics would be (potential) mayor of nyc, and he's made it pretty clear that he'd be a shitty mayor
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:28 (fourteen years ago)
he was v far right on the ground zero mosque thing iirc
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
so he'd be part of a rich lineage then
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)
can't remember the last mayor you guys had that wasn't totally shitty. Ed Koch?
how many mayor cities have had unambiguously 'good' mayors in the last few decades?
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)
mayor = major haha
My mayor is looking for work btw
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:33 (fourteen years ago)
he was a smug jerk but Willie Brown was mostly allright
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:34 (fourteen years ago)
Abe Beame (predeceasor to the grossly-overrated Ed Koch) was underrated (if not exactly great) in a Gerald Ford-I-inherited-a-fucking-mess kinda way.
i like Corey Booker, who i hope will run for NJ gov in a few years and deflate some of Fat Governor's hot gas.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)
Ed Rendell and Harold Washington also were pretty cool AFAIK.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:39 (fourteen years ago)
lord help anyone who has to take on christie's hot gas
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:41 (fourteen years ago)
every time i read about any of anthony weiner's actual positions i disagree with him but fuck it, he's a democrat who yells on tv, show me a couple more of those and i'll get picky
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
My friend, a lifelong NYer who doesn't have TV (or watch congressional rants on YT), turned on Bill Maher's HBO show during a business trip and was aghast to discover that Weiner is now considered a voice of progressive Dems.
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)
the thing is that given that new-democrat-tv-asshole is pretty much as good as democrats get I am happy w/a guy who occasionally gets off a rant I dig & is otherwise noxious - better than just being noxious and never even saying anything funny
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:48 (fourteen years ago)
aghast to discover that Weiner is now considered a voice of progressive Dems.
Pretty sure Richard Russell would be considered a Trotskyite today.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:49 (fourteen years ago)
Bella Abzug = Emma Goldman
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
I'm curious why more safe seat dem congresspeople don't attempt to play this part, dude's a semi-national figure just cause he was loud enough on tv.
― iatee, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:58 (fourteen years ago)
my congresswoman decided to go after NASCAR. yeah i don't get it either.
― goole, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:58 (fourteen years ago)
have you tried being interviewed by megyn kelly?
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
being college buddies with Jon Stewart was a pretty big help.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
"he was a smug jerk but Willie Brown was mostly allright"
WHAT?!?! He was a total cronyist, corporate-trough-feeding slime bah.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
bag
lol yeah I don't deny any of that but City seemed to do okay during his tenure.
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:06 (fourteen years ago)
every SF mayor that I've lived through has been a slimebag fwiw
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:07 (fourteen years ago)
I would have taken Willie or Gavin as mayor of Oakland anytime.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:12 (fourteen years ago)
City was rolling in dough, of course it did okay.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:18 (fourteen years ago)
built a new ballpark, that's more than Gavin's done
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:22 (fourteen years ago)
anthony wiener is an idiot but that video is exactly how congress should deal with bullshit "emergency NPR hearings"
― gr8080, Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:39 (fourteen years ago)
Not sure I'd give that much credit to Willie, but Gavin did legalize gay marriages pretty much single handedly in SF.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:42 (fourteen years ago)
well, there is where we part ways good sir.
handing the GOP a wedge issue in an election year while simultaneously failing to achieve his prospective goal = worst grandstanding move ever. it's shit like that that got Prop 8 passed.
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:44 (fourteen years ago)
That's like arguing Johnson shouldn't have passed the Civil Rights Act cuz it lost dems a bunch of elections. I don't think it was a grandstanding move. It was a decent thing, I'm glad he did it and I think it pushed the narrative forward positively ultimately.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:50 (fourteen years ago)
A bunch of hateful homophobic jerks got prop 8 passed. Next you'll be blaming Will & Grace.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:51 (fourteen years ago)
it was a stupid move because it was blatantly illegal and he knew it. it was strictly politics for him, throwing a bone to the gay community and upping his national profile in the process. but the immediate political effect was a backlash that actually SET BACK the gay rights movement imho.
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:54 (fourteen years ago)
Johnson's Civil Rights Act was, y'know, actually within his jurisdiction.
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:55 (fourteen years ago)
Really? You think it set it back? Like how?
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:58 (fourteen years ago)
Well obv the justices who performed all those ceremonies thought it was in his jurisdiction.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:59 (fourteen years ago)
Upping his national profile by making himself hated? Clever politics.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:01 (fourteen years ago)
it was just a distraction done for his own personal gain. it made a national name for him as a "champion of gay rights". notwithstanding that he did not actually advance the cause in any way - his actions were quickly deemed invalid and against the law (since mayors don't write statewide marriage licensing policy) - it spurred on the opposition to pass an amendment that we are now going to have to waste time getting repealed (unless DOMA getting voided affects it). It made it look like the law was not on the side of the gay community, that the gay community would resort to tricks and stunts to get it's way, rather than adhere to legal principles and precedents. this is not the way you attract support from a skeptical public. If he hadn't pulled this stupid stunt, the gay community could have focused its efforts on the proper channels - getting the state legislature to recognize gay marriages, repealing DOMA, etc. Instead there was this big circus that accomplished nothing and a subsequent constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage while also preventing the legislature from doing anything about it. way to go gavin. fucking idiot.
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:10 (fourteen years ago)
For the record I think Newsome is a lousy mayor and I never voted for him (even for lt gov) but I complain constantly about spineless dem politicians who refuse to make bold progressive stands so I'm certainly not going to fault him for making one (esp one guaranteed to make him as unpopular as this one did.)
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:10 (fourteen years ago)
salon on the weiner dog ... here and ilxor alex pareene here. if these are to be believed, he really really wants to be mayor and he needs the morbzes of the world for that (he already has the gabbs).
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:11 (fourteen years ago)
one guaranteed to make him as unpopular as this one did
sent his approval ratings in SF through the roof following a hotly contested mayoral election he came very close to losing
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:12 (fourteen years ago)
Haha so this was all about winning a second term as mayor which he as the moneyed encumbent was probably going to win anyway. Either his logic was terrible or yours is.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:17 (fourteen years ago)
he's a politician, he has a pathological need to feel popular
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:19 (fourteen years ago)
also a pathological need to drunkenly bone his friends' wives
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:20 (fourteen years ago)
I'm not going to defend any of Gavins other choices obv.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:21 (fourteen years ago)
gr8 new newt stock photohttp://newtexplore2012.com/
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
Cindy McCain doppelganger
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:47 (fourteen years ago)
I bet she eats babies too
old news, dudes http://newtinfrontofstockphotos.tumblr.com/
― gr8080, Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)
"this is not the way you attract support from a skeptical public."
Actually I think this did a a not significant amount of good normalizing gay people/gay marriage for the "skeptical public". And I think nonsense like Prop 8 (which barely passed) was going to happen regardless (just like Bush reelection was gonna happen and stupid state marriage bans were gonna happen). This was always going to end up in court.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Friday, 18 March 2011 00:01 (fourteen years ago)
every time i read about any of anthony weiner's actual positions i disagree with him but fuck it, he's a democrat who yells on tv, show me a couple more of those and i'll get picky― difficult listening hour, Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:45 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:45 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
FUCKING ^^^^^^^^ THIS
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)
GET MAD MOTHERFUCKERS
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 00:26 (fourteen years ago)
red meat
― D-40, Friday, 18 March 2011 00:50 (fourteen years ago)
it's not old news, it's a new photo on the site, geez.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 18 March 2011 00:51 (fourteen years ago)
i realize i'm the same dude who some 2000 posts ago was saying 'dont dehumanize ppl goddammit' its just so cathartic to see an angry dem on tv
except ed on the ed show
fuck that guy
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 00:52 (fourteen years ago)
ed just isn't witty or articulate enough to do what he's trying.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 18 March 2011 00:54 (fourteen years ago)
i just found weiner kind of shrill idk. it just seems like a waste of time / attempt to make his voters think hes 'doin stuff'
7 Sponsored Bills (Ranks 21 of 440) 0 Made Into Law
29 Co-Sponsored Bills (Ranks 142 of 440) 0 Made Into Law
which hes not
― D-40, Friday, 18 March 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
yeah that rant was kinda rmde snarky
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Friday, 18 March 2011 00:58 (fourteen years ago)
i mean, other than pleasing hoos & the lead singer for guster
"We are excited about exploring whether there is sufficient support for my potential candidacy for President of this exceptional country."
awesomely bad sentence
― iatee, Friday, 18 March 2011 01:01 (fourteen years ago)
the lead singer for guster
given that you are going to hilarious "please change my display name" lengths I'm going to ask you once, nicely, to cut this shit out. after that I address you by your government name on every thread you post on.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 01:11 (fourteen years ago)
ok that wasn't "nicely" but seriously dude cut it the fuck out.
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:51 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark
oic sorry
― gr8080, Friday, 18 March 2011 01:20 (fourteen years ago)
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, March 18, 2011 1:11 AM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
'hilarious please change my display name lengths'?? its not my fault they didnt approve my new dn
also you sound way butthurt
― D-40, Friday, 18 March 2011 01:21 (fourteen years ago)
yeah I am pissed at you I wish you would fucking cut it out, people here respect your wishes, you my try respecting those of others
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 01:22 (fourteen years ago)
i thought it was good natured ribbing dont see what was so objectionable but i havent said anything since u complained about it, relax
― D-40, Friday, 18 March 2011 01:29 (fourteen years ago)
lol sorry I'm fuckin tense, my bad
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 01:31 (fourteen years ago)
dying irl
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 01:33 (fourteen years ago)
Paul Ryan:
I’m boggled. That just boggles my mind…I would argue, even though, it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems,it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems,it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems,it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems, it would build great confidence, fixing Social Security on a bipartisan basis, because it would tell not only the credit markets that Americans are getting their act together, it would buy us more time and space with them, it would show that our government’s not broken.
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)
it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems
just repeat this, over and over.
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)
and sadly, digby will probably be right:
Now it's possible that the Democrats will successfully use this to discredit Ryan on this subject and inform the American people that even the most strident safety net destroyers know that SS is not a deficit issue. And maybe the public is jaundiced enough about the "markets" that they will see this for the silly reasoning it is. Let's hope so.But the audience Ryan was trying to reach with that statement has just a little bit more power than all the rest of us put together on this. His name is Barack Obama and he has long signaled that he really, really, really wants to make a deal (aka the Grand Bargain). And Ryan just backed Tim Geithner in what's been reported as the battle for Obama's soul within the White House...I suspect Geithner is just blathering nonsensical CW and that Ryan is just lying outright, but if you don't care about the reasoning, this sure looks like bipartisan agreement to me. And everyone knows we've got a president who loves bipartisanship.
But the audience Ryan was trying to reach with that statement has just a little bit more power than all the rest of us put together on this. His name is Barack Obama and he has long signaled that he really, really, really wants to make a deal (aka the Grand Bargain).
And Ryan just backed Tim Geithner in what's been reported as the battle for Obama's soul within the White House...
I suspect Geithner is just blathering nonsensical CW and that Ryan is just lying outright, but if you don't care about the reasoning, this sure looks like bipartisan agreement to me. And everyone knows we've got a president who loves bipartisanship.
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 02:27 (fourteen years ago)
So, um, is anyone concerned that we might have entered a quasi-war with this no-fly-zone nonsense?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 March 2011 02:34 (fourteen years ago)
i wish someone would kick Timothy Geithner really, really hard in the face.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Friday, 18 March 2011 02:45 (fourteen years ago)
the audience Ryan was trying to reach with that statement has just a little bit more power than all the rest of us put together on this. His name is Barack Obama and he has long signaled that he really, really, really wants to make a deal (aka the Grand Bargain).And Ryan just backed Tim Geithner in what's been reported as the battle for Obama's soul within the White House
And Ryan just backed Tim Geithner in what's been reported as the battle for Obama's soul within the White House
wtf is the meaning of this
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)
geithner and the economists have been pushing for obama to make cuts to social security. his political advisors (axelrod, plouffe, etc) have been advising him not to make cuts.
HIS SOUL
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)
i mean everything i've read says we have to make war cuts & social security cuts
is that wrong
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 02:56 (fourteen years ago)
we have to raise taxes
― iatee, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:03 (fourteen years ago)
to the extent we're in debt at all, it's in no small part b/c the likes of Timothy Geithner (and the financial industry he fronts for). we bailed out Goldman Sachs and the fucking banks that brought us to the brink of another Great Depression, we the taxpayers are paying for their mistakes (including scaling back if not eliminating Social Security as we know it) and no-one besides Bernie Fucking Madoff is going to jail for the shit that put us in this spot to begin with.
folks like Morbz will laugh at folks like me for saying what i am about to say, but THIS SHIT SHOULD HAVE NO PLACE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:03 (fourteen years ago)
and it makes NO SENSE ECONOMICALLY. THAT is the real kicker here.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:13 (fourteen years ago)
― iatee, Friday, March 18, 2011 3:03 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark
right but that doesn't mean we don't also have to raise the retirement age?q
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:18 (fourteen years ago)
hell of negatives in that post doggy
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:20 (fourteen years ago)
do we not also, in addition to raising taxes, have to raise the retirement age & take other actions to maintain the solvency of social security if we are gonna be anywhere in the vicinity of a balanced budget? the balanced budget is not something i fetishize, but i'd like to have the US as far from a downgraded credit rating as possible because as arbitrary as those are it actually has a meaning in the context of the global economy
― HOOStory is back. Fasten your steenbelts. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:22 (fourteen years ago)
cool man thx but also that was like a wikipedian explanation of regulate
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:23 (fourteen years ago)
which i'm listening to....right now
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Friday, 18 March 2011 03:24 (fourteen years ago)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/social-security-suicide/
As some of us have tried to point out again and again, cutting Social Security would
(a) make only a minor contribution to reducing our long-run fiscal problems(b) offer no useful template for dealing with the real problem, health care costs
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:26 (fourteen years ago)
whoops, cut off next two paragraphs:
Let’s assume that we’re not talking about expropriating the money people have paid in, that we’re only talking about restoring actuarial balance. Well, on the conservative estimates of the Social Security trustees, we’re talking about 0.6 percent of GDP over the next 75 years. That’s not enough to make a major difference –certainly not enough to make any difference whatsoever to market confidence in US solvency.
All you would do is undermine a key part of the US social safety net — and, of course, offer Republicans a big fat target.
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:27 (fourteen years ago)
anyway, i'm no pro, but i trust krugman's opinion.
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:28 (fourteen years ago)
i have a hard time even having an opinion on this when it seems like such a joke? like, i dont want social security to get cut but given that serious people have all agreed to keep tax increases off the table, its like, why even bother with this?
― max, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:33 (fourteen years ago)
hoos - this was posted either upthread or in the previous one:
using it you can see very literally that our long-term budget problems could be fixed without touching ss. and I mean these are just solutions talked about on a national level they didn't even include "iatee's 90% income tax for people who make more than a million dollars" or "$5/gallon gas tax"
― iatee, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:40 (fourteen years ago)
xpost to max
agreed that it's ridiculous that tax increases are off the table, even for millionaires. but weakening the social safety net is not really a joke
― Z S, Friday, 18 March 2011 03:42 (fourteen years ago)
would be Obama doing Bush like Clinton did Reagan
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 March 2011 11:58 (fourteen years ago)
I think that's a fair assessment.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Friday, 18 March 2011 12:34 (fourteen years ago)
Hell, we're even hinting at war with Libya. Would be Quaddafi doing Saddam.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 March 2011 12:48 (fourteen years ago)
Jack Balkin otm:
My view, as I expressed to Charlie Savage in that interview, is that Obama has played the same role with respect to the National Surveillance State that Eisenhower played with respect to the New Deal and the administrative state, and Nixon played with respect to the Great Society and the welfare state. Each President established a bi-partisan consensus and gave bi-partisan legitimation to certain features of national state building.
After the Obama presidency, opponents of a vigorous national surveillance state will be outliers in American politics; they will have no home in either major political party. Their views will be, to use one of my favorite theoretical terms, "off the wall."
Nor should this be surprising. The causes that led to the rise of the National Surveillance State and the bureaucratic interests that led to its continuation and expansion, have continued unabated.
Yet, one might hope that the Obama version of the National Surveillance State might turn out to be more benign and friendly to civil liberties than the Bush/Cheney version. To a certain extent this is true, but not by as much as you might think. On several fronts, Obama has continued Bush era policies of preventive detention, surveillance, and protection of state secrets. And in other respects, he has gone further.
All of which brings me to Private Bradley Manning. The Obama Defense Department's treatment of Manning, a American citizen, has employed the sort of harsh techniques that candidate Obama and his supporters would have loudly decried if applied to Guantanamo Bay inmates or to another American citizen, Jose Padilla.
It's worth noting that if Private Manning were a prisoner of war, his treatment at the hands of the Obama Administration would violate the Geneva Conventions; indeed, if he were an non-uniformed enemy combatant, his treatment would probably violate Common Article III. Apparently, President Obama has gone Attorney General Alberto Gonzales one better. Not only must he believe that the protections of the Geneva Conventions are quaint, he must also think the same of the Bill of Rights, at least as applied to leakers--or at least, leakers whom the President and his associates did not authorize.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 March 2011 14:31 (fourteen years ago)
some stuff I've unfortunately just had time to glance over re SS.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028115.php
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/understanding-social-security-one-easy-lesson
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Friday, 18 March 2011 14:45 (fourteen years ago)
As I wrote upthread, Social Security is fine until 2037 and could be fine even longer without means-testing or cutting benefits if they raised the limit re income subject to payroll taxes. But all Republicans, a number of complicit Democrats and a mediocre press don't want income over $100,000 to be subject to payroll taxes to fund Social Security.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 18 March 2011 15:21 (fourteen years ago)
The lobbyists become Republican staffers issue (although yes Dems have done this too):
New tallies indicate that nearly half of the roughly 150 former lobbyists working in top policy jobs for members of Congress or House committees have been hired in the past few months. And many are working on legislative issues of interest to their former employers.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, which led other House panels by hiring six lobbyists this year, is drafting legislation sought by oil and energy firms. At least four staffers on the committee payroll worked for those industries last year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lobbyists-flock-to-capitol-hill-jobs/2011/03/04/ABh7eAn_story.html
― curmudgeon, Friday, 18 March 2011 19:36 (fourteen years ago)
oh look the Dems have their own dirty tricks squad
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 March 2011 19:52 (fourteen years ago)
can't read to wait updates on The Corner.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 March 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)
otm - I remember friends telling me that if this sort of thing happened, they'd surely "hold Obama accountable for it," whatever that means
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 19:58 (fourteen years ago)
presumably it means they wouldn't vote to re-elect him...?
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 March 2011 19:59 (fourteen years ago)
this just made me lol
http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-76.png
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 18 March 2011 20:00 (fourteen years ago)
Let's not get TOO excited.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 March 2011 20:01 (fourteen years ago)
well I'm assuming you and aerosmith and morbz won't be voting for him
― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 March 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)
I'll probably vote for him whatever the fuck why the hell not is my position these days - my vote is meaningless, my desire to not sponsor state torture is meaningless, whatever, you have the profoundly evil and the less evil, who gives a shit, I find voting depressing but my current-for-today-until-something-new-pisses-me-off position is like I don't like touring either but aerosmith can't survive on record sales so we tour instead of staying home to protest the collapse of the music business
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)
i know a couple people who loudly Aren't Voting For Him (who voted for him in 08) because of issues like this. they make me angry too, and i may well not vote for him in '12. but btw these particular people are the absolute worst people i know.
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 18 March 2011 21:21 (fourteen years ago)
it's ridiculous that tax increases are off the table, even for millionaires
tax receipts in FY 2011 are expected to equal 14.4% of GDP. the 40-year average is 18%
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 18 March 2011 21:22 (fourteen years ago)
(the kinds of internet-dork people who consider themselves very left-wing and spend 40% of their facebook time sneering at beck/palin/etc, but whom the apparent power-rush of "anonymous" is gradually turning into full-fledged libertarians even if they don't realize it, and who spend the other 60% shilling for julian assange and talking about the Inaugural Battle Of The InfoWars)
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 18 March 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)
(also they think rebecca black "should be waterboarded")
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 18 March 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)
my aerosmith agonistes over this shit is well known and need not be rehearsed in a non-election years, there'll be ample time in 2012 to wish anybody gave enough of a shit to launch a viable third party or anti-torture lobbying groups or really in any way hold democrats responsible, but they never will, shit will just continue to get worse & worse imo
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 18 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
poor put-upon kock bros, banned from wikipedia for sock-puppeteering
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 March 2011 00:46 (fourteen years ago)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/spuppet.jpg
― gr8080, Saturday, 19 March 2011 01:36 (fourteen years ago)
but they never will, shit will just continue to get worse & worse imo
when i'm drunk enough, like say now, this doesn't seem inevitable. it's just...i can't stay this way forever.
― this country is domed (Hunt3r), Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:33 (fourteen years ago)
hunt3r otm
― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)
$20 to any conservative who can demonstrate how this isn't big government interfering in people's lives
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0171.1.html&session=ls87
Section 1. [256.9870] ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER DEBIT CARD. Subdivision 1. Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter 256J are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.(b) Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a) must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household's name printed on the card. The card must also state that "It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages." This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient's name printed on the card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need to meet the requirements of this section. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from a vendor.
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 March 2011 16:42 (fourteen years ago)
The 'no cash withdrawals' policy and the "unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages" policy are just a continuation of food stamp policies from way back. The printing of the head-of-household's name is just an attempt to enforce the non-transferability of the benefit, which is also a longstanding policy. If you want to fight these policies, you will have to fight the full weight of 50 years of precedent.
For me, the most objectionable part of the move to debit cards for issuing government benefits is that the credit card companies who control all debit card transactions can harvest a variety of bloated fees for using the cards, which reduce the user's already scanty benefits.
― Aimless, Saturday, 19 March 2011 17:00 (fourteen years ago)
but there were also checks to cash to go along with food stamps. giving poor people those debit cards in lieu of cash, and then limiting what they can spend, seems quasi-punitive to me. i mean sure, "people should work hard, not take handouts," but this is the worst recession in forever, because of the big banks. then to funnel unfortunate people into accounts with the big banks (i think new york's program dispenses debit cards through chase bank) is for sure objectionable
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 March 2011 18:29 (fourteen years ago)
but there were also checks to cash to go along with food stamps. giving poor people those debit cards in lieu of cash, and then limiting what they can spend, seems quasi-punitive to me.
this is otm but penalizing people for being poor is a tradition in this country that both sides of the aisle enjoy
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 19 March 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
xp: bloated fees for using the cards
Administrative costs to states and food retailers have come down since the introduction of debit cards for SNAP and WIC, so while its an example of privatization of a government service, I don't think its a particularly egregious one.
One question I have regarding the use of debit cards vs. tangible certificates is whether they have increased cultural acceptance of banking in historically cash-only impoverished communities. The cash-only economy was in the past considered an obstacle to their economic prospects.
― What is here is dangerous and repulsive to us. (Sanpaku), Saturday, 19 March 2011 18:54 (fourteen years ago)
Another slight tangent: The gravity of the Great Recession was illustrated by several Wal-Mart CEO comments last year about monthly midnight bread lines.
― What is here is dangerous and repulsive to us. (Sanpaku), Saturday, 19 March 2011 18:58 (fourteen years ago)
I just received some disability benefits via debit card and exactly one week later I started receiving credit card offers from the same bank (from which I had not been receiving offers before). I think at the least the states should be limiting what the banks can do with this personal information they've been given. I really don't appreciate being solicited on account of my applying for legal benefits. The state essentially enters you into a customer agreement over which you have no control.
― wmlynch, Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:03 (fourteen years ago)
but the gop behind these moves keeps shouting for limited government, less intrusion in people's lives. everything they do and try to achieve is the opposite of what they say. makes you sick
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
You are quite right that the GOP only complains about certain kinds of government intrusion, but seems to embrace every form of intrusion into personal and private matters their religious base deems immoral, and most forms of government coersion, intimidation or unchecked police power against the poor. Open secret there.
― Aimless, Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:38 (fourteen years ago)
it's almost as if they only believe in personal freedom when it's convenient to do so
― hipster bluppies (symsymsym), Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:47 (fourteen years ago)
florida is going batshit
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/07/2102018/house-speaker-wants-2-florida.html
House Speaker Dean Cannon on Monday proposed creating a second Florida Supreme Court so that one set of justices could specialize on criminal appeals and the other on civil cases. The Winter Park Republican said a House committee will draft a proposed state constitutional amendment for the 2012 ballot that also would increase the number of justices from seven to 10 with five on each court.
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)
Court-packing in a pretty new package.
― Aimless, Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:41 (fourteen years ago)
Texas has civil and criminal supreme courts. It has basically turned the criminal side into a kangaroo court for the prosecution, as I understand it. (Because who's going to elect anyone with a reasonable stance on crime to the criminal court?)
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:48 (fourteen years ago)
The House Agriculture Committee endorsed a letter this week to Budget Chairman Paul Ryan arguing that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps low-income Americans purchase food, would make a better target for cuts than automatic subsidies to farms.
from washington monthly
― curmudgeon, Monday, 21 March 2011 18:30 (fourteen years ago)
with timothy geithner in Treasury, who needs the GOP?!?
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Monday, 21 March 2011 18:47 (fourteen years ago)
jesus christ on a hotrod...see, I knew all of this but seeing it all in print like that just makes me want to stick my head in the oven
― VegemiteGrrl, Monday, 21 March 2011 18:50 (fourteen years ago)
.........on a hotrod?
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 21 March 2011 23:45 (fourteen years ago)
or any automobile of your choosing
― VegemiteGrrl, Monday, 21 March 2011 23:59 (fourteen years ago)
ministry was pretty sweet for a while there
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 05:33 (fourteen years ago)
Ugh Geithner.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 22 March 2011 13:45 (fourteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4fmH8eUcck
― I may be wrong but I think his name is Husher (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 14:50 (fourteen years ago)
Kucinich says "I" word
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/dennis-kucinich-calls-says-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense-for-obama.php#
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 15:25 (fourteen years ago)
in fairness though Dennis K tried to begin impeachment proceedings when the President used the salad fork on his main dish last week
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 15:32 (fourteen years ago)
Noted Africa expert Ted Nugent on the futility of intervention.
― Anti-mist K-Lo (Phil D.), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 15:33 (fourteen years ago)
I am so not clicking that link
― VegemiteGrrl, Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)
It goes to Media Matters making fun of Nugent fwiw.
― Anti-mist K-Lo (Phil D.), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:14 (fourteen years ago)
Seriously, Nugent is like a Spider-Man villain. After being embarrassed and demolished by the MC5 in his youth, he turned to a life of douchebaggery...
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
OK, so TPM has this story up about the photos that appeared in Der Spiegel of US service members posing with dead Afghan civilians, an incident currently being treated and prosecuted by the military as a murder. Horrible story, but to amazing LOLs:
- One of these soldiers is actually named Spec. Jeremy N. Morlock.- He is from Wasilla, Alaska.
I mean . . .
― Anti-mist K-Lo (Phil D.), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
Please, let it turn out that he's shagged a minor Palin: Track.
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:35 (fourteen years ago)
Ha, I read "minor" two different ways!
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:37 (fourteen years ago)
Ha, you were meant to!
― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:40 (fourteen years ago)
They're all minor Palins.
― go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:41 (fourteen years ago)
i must admit i'd love it if 100 years from now we used the word 'palin' to mean 'vacuous & vacant'
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:43 (fourteen years ago)
i mean ffs she can't even get her trip to israel right, getting bethlehem wrong n shit
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:44 (fourteen years ago)
i'm glad that i'm at a point where i no longer know what you're talking about re: palin & Bethlehem
― larry buttz (Z S), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:46 (fourteen years ago)
her convoy literally got to the border of the west bank, stopped when they saw a checkpoint ("what do you mean bethlehem isn't in israel?") and turned around and drove back to jeruselam
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:51 (fourteen years ago)
like the fact that maybe she didn't know offhand that bethlehem was across the border, ok, sure, but how fucking long was she on a plane with advisers knowing they had bethlehem on the itinerary and nobody thought to ask permission to cross the border or like, she didn't see fit to do a couple magazine articles worth of reading on the places she was visiting just
*boggles*
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:53 (fourteen years ago)
looooool
wow. beyond that, just imagining the sight of a group of americans approaching the west bank border, getting confused and turning around. pretty typical
― larry buttz (Z S), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:55 (fourteen years ago)
Obama just decided to leave El Salvador early and head back (he had been in Brazil)to the US. His 'spring break' while Libya is happening was being mocked by the usuals (can a Prez do more than 1 thing at a time or was this politically clueless)
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)
*cue months old footage of him playing basketball presented as current, cut to explosions in libya*
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:06 (fourteen years ago)
don't tell anyone but I secretly moonlight as a production manager for FOX news. Have you heard about the weird catholic stuff Rick Santorum (D-Penn) has been saying?
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:08 (fourteen years ago)
D?
― goole, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)
FOX is infamous for putting a D next to republicans names onscreen when scandals about them break. It was a joke. I know Santorum is not a member of the democratic party.
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:12 (fourteen years ago)
DemoCRAT party I think you mean
― Hyper Rescue Troop (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:13 (fourteen years ago)
ha i figured that's the thing you meant. what did santorum say that merited d-grading?
― goole, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:14 (fourteen years ago)
He dissed JFK for saying he'd keep his Catholicism out of the office.
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)
Geithner still has a job, but Christina Romer doesn't.
thank you, Barry.
― Nguyễn Bích U Phúc (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 23:48 (fourteen years ago)
Obama going on vacation while everything is going down in Libya is the first thing he's done that strongly reminds me of Dubya (cue derisive joke from Morbz)
― Destroy A. Monsters (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 24 March 2011 04:05 (fourteen years ago)
hes... not on vacation
― max, Thursday, 24 March 2011 04:24 (fourteen years ago)
Okay my bad
― Destroy A. Monsters (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 24 March 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)
Yeah I misunderstood the post upthread. Sorry.
― Destroy A. Monsters (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 24 March 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)
obama is clearing brush on his farm in hyde park
― iatee, Thursday, 24 March 2011 04:33 (fourteen years ago)
Good on him.
― Destroy A. Monsters (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 24 March 2011 04:37 (fourteen years ago)
I thought he was clearing Brazil of Brazilians.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 March 2011 11:02 (fourteen years ago)
made me lol
― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 24 March 2011 11:30 (fourteen years ago)
the first thing he's done that strongly reminds me of Dubya
There's this thing called policy, too
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 March 2011 11:53 (fourteen years ago)
He also pays lip service to climate change but actually doesn't give a shit
― larry buttz (Z S), Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:21 (fourteen years ago)
Although, comparison fail because bush never even paid lip service to it. But comparison succeed because neither one gives a shit.
― larry buttz (Z S), Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:22 (fourteen years ago)
Of all the lame double-standards Obama is held to, the vacation thing is one of the most frustrating. Whenever he goes on vacation he gets shit, because, OMG, he has to pay for a hotel rather than retire to his 200 acre family estate in Maine or Texas or wherever. What an elitist! Vacationing in his birth state, Hawaii, where he has friends and family, when he should be saving up for a modest plantation.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 24 March 2011 13:46 (fourteen years ago)
Never gave a damn about how long Bush spent on Crawford tbh; it's the orders he barked when on the phone from Crawford that worried me.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 March 2011 13:47 (fourteen years ago)
He also ignored Katrina going on in New Orleans while down in Crawford before he finally decided to view New Orleans from above on his flight back to Washington
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 March 2011 14:04 (fourteen years ago)
tbh I don't think someone needs to 'be there' to respond effectively - if you're the president you should have all the info at hand wherever you are. going to new orleans / wtc etc. is pretty much just a symbolic gesture. but symbolism matters!
― iatee, Thursday, 24 March 2011 14:22 (fourteen years ago)
'should have' is quite different than 'will have' obv
― iatee, Thursday, 24 March 2011 14:23 (fourteen years ago)
I got a feeling from one op-ed that people think Obama is engaged in a political strategy--let the public just see the Republicans and Dems battle in Congress, and that will make Obama look better. I think though that ceding the argument creating to Congress lets Republicans make the issue the deficit rather than jobs domestically, and Obama not being out in front on Libya and the middle East while arguably better politically by working through the UN , gets depicted as a failure of leadership.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 March 2011 14:44 (fourteen years ago)
Question: what is Obama's primary issue that he's pushing right now?
― larry buttz (Z S), Thursday, 24 March 2011 15:00 (fourteen years ago)
I understand the unrest in the middle east "region" and Japan are probably eating up his time, but he hasn't been a prominent voice on those either
― larry buttz (Z S), Thursday, 24 March 2011 15:02 (fourteen years ago)
Building new coal plants? Is that his big thing?
― larry buttz (Z S), Thursday, 24 March 2011 15:03 (fourteen years ago)
Obama is engaged in a political strategy--let the public just see the Republicans and Dems battle in Congress,
I believe this is what Greenwald referred to last week as Bam fans' "11-dimensional chess" fantasy.
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 March 2011 15:07 (fourteen years ago)
Obama is complicated
or just stubbornly following the same hands-off approach he did on health care, except now he's got a Republican House.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
not complicated, it's just hard work keeping his image charade going.
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:52 (fourteen years ago)
We'll know in thirty years, won't we.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 March 2011 19:10 (fourteen years ago)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218970652119898.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
somewhere bush is blushing
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 24 March 2011 20:25 (fourteen years ago)
ugh time to donate some more $$$ to the ACLU
― Hyper Rescue Troop (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 24 March 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)
What kind of "game" is Obama playing here, curmudgeon?
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 March 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)
"Bad cop"
― Hyper Rescue Troop (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 24 March 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)
I don't want to derail the thread with an ancient argument, but Obama quite clearly did NOT take a hands-off approach to health care. He made it quite clear -- several times! -- that he had no interest in a public option and would reject any plan that advanced one.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 March 2011 22:10 (fourteen years ago)
wait I don't remember him ever saying he would reject it
― fuck this bullshit excuse for a biscuit (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 24 March 2011 22:14 (fourteen years ago)
I read it in The WaPo in the last few months of fall '09; I'll dig it up.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 March 2011 22:15 (fourteen years ago)
While tea party folks were making noise that summer he was not speaking up for anything. His "game" if it is one, is to let others debate and then go with what he perceives as the centrist bipartisan Dem leaning stance.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 March 2011 23:57 (fourteen years ago)
^ding. and if he were polling in the high 50s i would say well bully for him, but he's not so i'm kinda o_O
― the Hogg who would be Boss (will), Friday, 25 March 2011 00:02 (fourteen years ago)
The real president of the united states is congress
― U2 the musical by Spiderman (CaptainLorax), Friday, 25 March 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)
isnt it what the public perceives as the centrist bipartisan stance
― so fly zone (D-40), Friday, 25 March 2011 05:11 (fourteen years ago)
omg capt lorax..........................otm
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 March 2011 06:25 (fourteen years ago)
thought Scott Brown was president.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 March 2011 11:08 (fourteen years ago)
you could def write a program for doing what Obama does
(similar to HAL 9000 actually)
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 11:32 (fourteen years ago)
"hal, get us a public option!!!!"
"i'm sorry morbz. i can't do that."
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 March 2011 13:38 (fourteen years ago)
so right now there's a low sound coming from Obama... "Daaaisy...Daaaisy"
― VegemiteGrrl, Friday, 25 March 2011 13:41 (fourteen years ago)
no o oval office speech: "He doesn’t want to equate what he regards as a smaller, time-limited mission with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51910.html
okay
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 25 March 2011 13:50 (fourteen years ago)
"what he regards" = chilling
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 13:50 (fourteen years ago)
he has the greatest confidence in the mission
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 13:51 (fourteen years ago)
obel peace prize
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 25 March 2011 15:03 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/my_worlds_collide.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Marshall%29
Bill Cronon is a Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin. A few days ago he wrote an oped in the Times critical of Gov. Walker and his push to abolish collective bargaining rights for public employees in Wisconsin. About a week before that, he wrote a blog post -- the first in a new blog called Scholar as Citizen -- examining just who's behind this big anti-union push. He focused on a group called ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council).Less than two days after Cronon published the blog post, the Wisconsin Republican Party filed a state open records request to gain access to Cronon's personal emails to get a look at what communications or discussions or sources or anything else went into writing it.
Less than two days after Cronon published the blog post, the Wisconsin Republican Party filed a state open records request to gain access to Cronon's personal emails to get a look at what communications or discussions or sources or anything else went into writing it.
― gtfopocalypse (dan m), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:18 (fourteen years ago)
how do you get access to personal emails via an open records request wtf
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:20 (fourteen years ago)
whoa yeah i'm confused as to how that could be legal
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:22 (fourteen years ago)
he's a state employee, they'll say
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
Here's the (legally dubious) explanation from the same article:
Now, 'personal' is up for some reasonable debate here. This is his university email. And he's a Professor at the University of Wisconsin, the state university. So he's a state employee. Still, he's not an elected official or someone doing public business in the sense you'd ordinarily understand the term. Nor are they looking at anything tied to the administration of the University, which is legitimately a public matter. In the ordinary sense we tend to understand the word it's his personal email. And the range of requested documents leave no doubt about what they're after.
― Moodles, Friday, 25 March 2011 16:27 (fourteen years ago)
Not sure how "personal" is defined, but thanks to Florida's sunshine laws we can request emails from state employees.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:27 (fourteen years ago)
Our reporters have successfully requested professor and administrator emails.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
That's partly why Palin switched to her yahoo account while governor: that way no one could request emails sent from her state account.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
oooo Walker is so gonna recalled
― Destroy A. Monsters (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 25 March 2011 16:51 (fourteen years ago)
Gov. Scott Walker's (R-WI) staff says that no one on the staff ever read an e-mail sent to them in February by a deputy prosecutor in Johnson County, Ind., which encouraged the Walker administration to stage a "false flag" assault or assassination attempt on Walker in order to discredit unions in the Wisconsin political battle over Walker's anti-public employee union legislation.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/walkers-office-we-never-saw-the-false-flag-e-mail-from-indiana-prosecutor.php?ref=fpi
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 March 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)
"..................we dont know anything abt that"
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 25 March 2011 17:07 (fourteen years ago)
GE makes $14 B in profis, pays no taxes, gets a $3 B credit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html
BEAUTIFUL pic of Obama w/ the CEO, his appointee to his Commission on Bullshit.
Let's just call off this country.
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 18:14 (fourteen years ago)
The shelters are so crucial to G.E.’s bottom line that when Congress threatened to let the most lucrative one expire in 2008, the company came out in full force. G.E. officials worked with dozens of financial companies to send letters to Congress and hired a bevy of outside lobbyists.The head of its tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.
The head of its tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.
That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.
The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.
that must have been one hell of a blowjob
― larry buttz (Z S), Friday, 25 March 2011 18:29 (fourteen years ago)
help w/ teh maintenance on his Caribbean condo
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 18:39 (fourteen years ago)
so not sorry to see Rangel gone.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 March 2011 18:40 (fourteen years ago)
he's still in office, y'know. I'm sure the GOP chairman is a pillar of virtue.
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
lolbama damage control on GE story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047212-503544.html
― Fuck bein' hard, Dr Morbz is complicated (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 March 2011 19:47 (fourteen years ago)
Embarassing.
some tax experts question what taxpayers are getting in return. Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment. In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion.
Yep,GE's Ceo will sure help with job creation ideas. Ha.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 25 March 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)
sooo there's this asst prosecutor from indiana who's just been fired because it has emerged that he sent some emails advising WI gov. walker to fake an assassination attempt or something.
well, someone found an amazon reader review of his from 99. praising a race-war prep kind of book:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1QGK1DF4QHDMC/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0929408179&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Very good predictions, December 18, 1999By Carlos F. LamThis review is from: Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America (Paperback)This book is an excellent prediction of what is to come in the next century. Not only are black and hispanic militancy on the rise, but White movements are gaining adherents daily, probably in response to the crimes perpetrated against Whites by these other races. Mr. Chittum's predictions are also backed up with statistics, and he also shows that past multiethnic empires have broken up. Read it and prepare.
the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Breakup-America/dp/0929408179/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301087863&sr=8-1
Product DescriptionThis fascinating book looks into the very real possibility that America could descend into a racial civil war in the coming decade. Frightening, but full of facts that are difficult to argue with. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
About the AuthorThomas W. Chittum was a rifleman in the United States Army in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966, a rifleman in the Rhodesian Territorials in the early Seventies, and a rifleman in the Croatian Army in 1991 and 1992. He was a computer programmer for most of his adult life. He is now a writer and lives in rural New Jersey. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
― goole, Friday, 25 March 2011 21:21 (fourteen years ago)
forget about GE, what about the oil subsidies. Obama proposed a relatively (and pitifully) small 4 billion dollar reduction in them, but we won't even get that.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 25 March 2011 23:20 (fourteen years ago)
ohhhh yeah
― Frightening, but full of facts that are difficult to argue with. (dan m), Saturday, 26 March 2011 02:35 (fourteen years ago)
So, I understand and agree completely that oil subsidies are a much bigger deal, but that kind of reaction is kind of what's wrong with the left's response to stories like this. Do not forget about GE, it was on the front page of the NYT today and has people angry right now. Anyone who thinks corporate welfare is absolute bullshit should be talking about pretty much nothing else but GE in their political discussions for the next week, at least. Not about issues that are similar to GE, not about bigger issues than GE, but GE, GE, GE, because GE is a story with traction right now.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Saturday, 26 March 2011 03:46 (fourteen years ago)
Here's a softball for the President Gas crowd:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/obama-a-lot-like-ike-20110324
I think it's a good piece. It tries to explain a common method in the way Obama approaches things, pointing out the advantages and the costs in almost equal measure. It's tilted a little towards the sympathetic side. (I wanted to check to see if someone's already linked to it, but loading this whole thread has become a nightmare. Should someone maybe start a new one?)
― clemenza, Saturday, 26 March 2011 13:53 (fourteen years ago)
yeah it's getting to be that time
― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 26 March 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)
US POLITICS SPRING 2011 - Let's just call off this country
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 26 March 2011 16:28 (fourteen years ago)
― iatee, Saturday, 26 March 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)
US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.
― Godspeed HOOS! Black Steendriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 26 March 2011 16:37 (fourteen years ago)
I've been hesitant to get into this guy, but I really can't find anything assailable about this piece:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1
It's like he writes what at first sounds like needlessly inflammatory hyperbole, but then when you go over it everything he's saying is true.
― rock rough 'n' stuff with h.r. pufnstuf (Hurting 2), Thursday, 14 April 2011 05:16 (fourteen years ago)
SORRY! WILL REPOST TO NEW THREAD!