I will exclude candidates like Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, and all similar less than no names. (It's just too much work to include them). So, here we go:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bachmann2011.jpg/96px-Bachmann2011.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Ron_Paul%2C_official_Congressional_photo_portrait%2C_2007.jpg/96px-Ron_Paul%2C_official_Congressional_photo_portrait%2C_2007.jpg)
Nuts.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg/96px-Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Herman_Cain_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/96px-Herman_Cain_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Rick_Santorum_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/100px-Rick_Santorum_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Ambassador_Jon_Huntsman.jpg/96px-Ambassador_Jon_Huntsman.jpg)
Who?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Newt_Gingrich_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg/103px-Newt_Gingrich_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg)
Ha, good one!
(http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mitt_romney1.jpg) (http://southpawbeagle.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rick-perry.jpg)
May the best hair win.
A dumb question - despite Sarah Palin coming across as too cowardly to announce anything in case she fails miserably, doesn't the fact that she has campaign busses mean that she is campaigning for the nomination, even if it's not official?
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 13, 2011, 08:04:11 AMA dumb question - despite Sarah Palin coming across as too cowardly to announce anything in case she fails miserably, doesn't the fact that she has campaign busses mean that she is campaigning for the nomination, even if it's not official?
Possibly, but I doubt it. She may be angling for another VP slot. Imagine Perry and Palin, or rather, Right and Righter. She clearly loves the limelight and she enjoys making lots of money, so she may just be a gadfly for a while before returning to her TV home. That's a good place for her.
I think that's true (edit: the original post). If pressed to vote I might go for holy underpants guy over TX jesus freak. :D
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 13, 2011, 08:04:11 AM
A dumb question - despite Sarah Palin coming across as too cowardly to announce anything in case she fails miserably, doesn't the fact that she has campaign busses mean that she is campaigning for the nomination, even if it's not official?
Sarah Palin is such a light weight that I only wish she goes away. Who needs a former IRS tax attorney like Michelle Bachmann to be another contender ...
Who's the guy you want to have a beer with?
This may well be up to the Supreme Crt.
2012 turnout will be abysmally low, since all those people excited about Bammy won't turn up this time, and I suspect B. will be a one-termer.
However sad that is, he's got himself to blame for it.
The US is in a tailspin that's virtually impossible to set right.
Quote from: Herman on August 13, 2011, 11:20:07 AMWho's the guy you want to have a beer with?
Not a fair question with two Mormons in the race.
There's hardly any real conservative in the republican party. Ron Paul was the best one they had last time around and he was pretty much shunned by the entire party, probably because he was the only honest one in the lot. Doubt he will run again. The american right is a joke and has been for as long as i can remember.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 13, 2011, 02:23:15 PMRon Paul was the best one they had last time around and he was pretty much shunned by the entire party, probably because he was the only honest one in the lot. Doubt he will run again.
Ron Paul is a doofus who doesn't know anything about economic policy - especially monetary policy - or foreign policy or domestic policy. That's why he was shunned and is not, and cannot be, taken seriously. He's in the running right now, though perhaps he will drop out. No loss.
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
Ron Paul is a doofus who doesn't know anything about economic policy - especially monetary policy - or foreign policy or domestic policy. That's why he was shunned and is not, and cannot be, taken seriously. He's in the running right now, though perhaps he will drop out. No loss.
Now I know how the Dems felt when they only had Al Gore or John Kerry to vote for... :-\
8)
----------------
Now playing:
New Dusseldorf Hofmusik / Utiger Christine Schornsheim - Hob 18 01 Concerto in C for Organ 1st mvmt - Moderato
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
Ron Paul is a doofus who doesn't know anything about economic policy - especially monetary policy - or foreign policy or domestic policy.
As opposed to the geniuses that nearly ran the entire economy to the ground while the nation is being swept by unchecked mass immigration. Those are the people we ought to trust, right?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 13, 2011, 02:50:59 PMAs opposed to the geniuses that nearly ran the entire economy to the ground while the nation is being swept by unchecked mass immigration. Those are the people we ought to trust, right?
Here's the thing, you supporting Paul is hardly a ringing endorsement or validation of the quality of his ideas. You can try to deflect, but that doesn't change the
fact that's he's a fruitcake.
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 03:01:28 PM
Here's the thing, you supporting Paul is hardly a ringing endorsement or validation of the quality of his ideas. You can try to deflect, but that doesn't change the fact that's he's a fruitcake.
When the nation is being swept by abject insanity, its understandable that
reasonable ideas might appear to be actually crazy to the crazies.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 13, 2011, 03:04:13 PMWhen the nation is being swept by abject insanity, its understandable that reasonable ideas might appear to be actually crazy to the crazies.
Your many posts show quite clearly that you are incapable of forming a reasonable opinion or knowing one when you run across it.
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Your many posts show quite clearly that you are incapable of forming a reasonable opinion or knowing one when you run across it.
Says the man who's entire line of argument rests on petty personal insults.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 13, 2011, 03:07:48 PMSays the man who's entire line of argument rests on petty personal insults.
Not petty insults. Honest observations.
Well Bachmann won the straw poll... a clear sign that she's too extreme to win the election. >:D
I just want to say, as a Texan who has already voted against Rick Perry once, I consider it my civic duty - nay, a moral requirement of my allegiance with my fellow man - to continue voting against Rick Perry for as long as is necessary.
Quote from: Brian on August 13, 2011, 03:55:59 PM
I just want to say, as a Texan who has already voted against Rick Perry once, I consider it my civic duty - nay, a moral requirement of my allegiance with my fellow man - to continue voting against Rick Perry for as long as is necessary.
I know very little about Perry. Why the negativity?
I seriously doubt I'm going to like any of them enough to vote... again.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 13, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I know very little about Perry. Why the negativity?
No national leader should be called "Rick". "Kevin" was bad enough....
Apologies to all the Ricks and Kevins here!
Quote from: DavidW on August 13, 2011, 03:49:40 PM
Well Bachmann won the straw poll... a clear sign that she's too extreme to win the election. >:D
She's extreme only in her pathological need to please:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/bachmann-if-we-reject-israel-then-there-is-a-curse-that-comes-into-play.php
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
Ron Paul is a doofus who doesn't know anything about economic policy - especially monetary policy - or foreign policy or domestic policy.
Paul may be a "doofus," but I would vote for him if only based on his foreign policy. Close down the American Empire before it strangles us. The other Repubs are just cheerleaders for the military-industrial complex.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 13, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I know very little about Perry. Why the negativity?
(Bearing in mind these facts may have changed since I moved to England)
The state school board has rewritten history standards to emphasize conservative values and be kinder to the antebellum south.
Rick Perry has suggested - though not yet acted on - a plan to more directly influence the curricula of and classes offered by public universities. A pretty unanimous faculty rebellion scared him off.
We've had to watch Perry make trips to places like Israel during his governorship, which is something all states sit through when they know their governor is going to run for president in a couple years. But Perry's also been sending moronic letters to the State Department letting them know his urgent opinions on Israel.
There are some questions about things like shady land deals with friends; a Republican congressman sold him a lot in the Hill Country for $300,000 which he then sold to (no joke) an international arms dealer (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20100725-murky-land-deals-mark-gov.-rick-perry_s-past.ece) for $1.15 million.
During his last governorship race, Perry defeated the mayor of Houston, Bill White. White had won his second term in Houston with a nigh-Iranian 91% of the vote, but it was because he led a city which had met its pollution clean-up goals ten years ahead of schedule and he had even lowered taxes. Rick Perry won by refusing to participate in any debate, riding the assertion that any Democrat is a shill of Obama and "Washington", and trusting the Texas masses to vote Republican as they always do.
Our education system has overtaken Mississippi's as the worst in the US.
Thousands of jobs have been created during Perry's tenure; almost all are minimum wage and an unknown number are taken by immigrants, so the net effect is negligible.
Texas has gone from a balanced budget under Bush (oddly enough) to a $27 billion deficit.
Texas has an estimated 2 million children without access to health care.
Then there's The Response (http://theresponseusa.com/), the day-long "prayer rally" Perry suggested and nominally presided over at Reliant Stadium. Among the pastors and megapastors helping 30,000 people to "pray for America" were Dr Dobson and John C. Hagee. Perry says that, since he did not officially endorse the Response
as governor but merely initiated and inspired it as a private individual, he did not cross the line between church and state.
Regardless, Rick Perry may be the evangelicals' man (http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god). (That website is down right now but the host has some kind of automatic cache view generator.)
EDIT: Oh, goodness, I forgot that whole episode where Perry turned up at a Tea Party rally and told the crowd that if Texas didn't like how Washington governed it, they could always secede. Don't get me wrong; the guy's very smart - insofar as he is preternaturally gifted with a knowledge of what positions to take far in advance in order to make himself as popular as possible with his target audience. Aside from the response to Hurricane Ike, taking in Katrina refugees, and bravely demanding HPV vaccines for teenage girls (over the protests of the abstinence crowd*), I can't think of a single example of Perry "governing" my state in an important way.
*though it should be noted that I was never given a sex ed course, and that I still have to wikipedia-search anatomical and other things I get confused about.
Perry also suggested invading Mexico:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20101119-Perry-backs-sending-U-S-5391.ece
but he has arguably the best hair.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 13, 2011, 11:44:51 PM
She's extreme only in her pathological need to please:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/bachmann-if-we-reject-israel-then-there-is-a-curse-that-comes-into-play.php
So she IS a nut. At first I thought that must be an Onion headline, but I guess I forgot how screwy the US is these days.
Dang, looks like Pawlenty is dropping out. Too bad. He seemed among the least odious of the bunch along with Huntsman.
From today's Boston Herald:
But Pawlenty's affected southern accent was pathetic.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 13, 2011, 09:26:32 PM
No national leader should be called "Rick". "Kevin" was bad enough....
Both much better than "Mitt." What kind of politician calls himself after a piece of baseball equipment?
Quote from: Velimir on August 14, 2011, 05:40:54 AM
Both much better than "Mitt." What kind of politician calls himself after a piece of baseball equipment?
Well, you can't get any more American than Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Apple Pie. :)
Quote from: Velimir on August 14, 2011, 12:48:49 AMPerry also suggested invading Mexico
Well, the US does that about once every century, so now wouldn't be a bad time. Hopefully such an adventure would end up more like the first invasion than the second. Think of the beachfront investment properties . . .
Quote from: eyeresist on August 14, 2011, 03:37:03 AMSo she IS a nut.
I thought my initial post made that clear. Whatever you do, do not read about her views on homosexuality. Hey, a Karger-Bachmann debate might be fun to watch.
Well Pawlenty dropped out, so that one can be scratched off of the list.
Doesn't really matter who they get to become president. Every politician's hand is reaching in the same pot. This country has gone to hell.
Wow MI you are a cynic!
Quote from: DavidW on August 14, 2011, 09:28:17 AM
Wow MI you are a cynic!
Well I've tried to find the good in this country but it's excruciatingly difficult to find.
Sorry to disappoint my fellow Americans here on GMG, but I'm just being honest.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2011, 09:37:27 AMWell I've tried to find the good in this country but it's excruciatingly difficult to find.
It is an established fact that young people know everything, so your pronouncement fills my heart with sorrow.
Quote from: Todd on August 14, 2011, 10:21:35 AM
It is an established fact that young people know everything, so your pronouncement fills my heart with sorrow.
Said the guy who disagrees with somebody just because they showed some true genuine emotion and said something against their precious America. ::)
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2011, 10:47:23 AM
Said the guy who disagrees with somebody just because they showed some true genuine emotion and said something against their precious America. ::)
Personally, I do think this country is precious despite its faults. Since you can find no good here, where are you considering moving to?
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2011, 10:47:23 AMSaid the guy who disagrees with somebody just because they showed some true genuine emotion and said something against their precious America.
Um, okay. Here's a tip: try tossing in a bit of reason in your responses. Emotional, knee-jerk responses are basically worthless.
Quote from: Szykneij on August 14, 2011, 10:58:10 AM
Personally, I do think this country is precious despite its faults. Since you can find no good here, where are you considering moving to?
I don't think we need to come to that. I lived in the US for 22 years, and have been back to China for almost 10 years now. I can find lots of faults in both countries, but I have little problem living in them. I don't find the "If you don't like it here get the hell out" thing helpful, logical, or even making any sense.
Quote from: springrite on August 14, 2011, 11:05:12 AM
I don't think we need to come to that. I lived in the US for 22 years, and have been back to China for almost 10 years now. I can find lots of faults in both countries, but I have little problem living in them. I don't find the "If you don't like it here get the hell out" thing helpful, logical, or even making any sense.
Yes, all countries have their faults, but MI's view is
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2011, 09:37:27 AM
Well I've tried to find the good in this country but it's excruciatingly difficult to find.
If he's having trouble finding any good here, then I don't think he'll be happy anywhere.
Quote from: Szykneij on August 14, 2011, 11:10:26 AM
If he's having trouble finding any good here, then I don't think he'll be happy anywhere.
Thus the best policy is to stay put and listen to HVL, Ginastera, Rubbra, Milhaud and go on with it, no? ;D
Quote from: springrite on August 14, 2011, 11:13:23 AM
Thus the best policy is to stay put and listen to HVL, Ginastera, Rubbra, Milhaud and go on with it, no? ;D
Works for me ;)
Quote from: Szykneij on August 14, 2011, 11:10:26 AMIf he's having trouble finding any good here, then I don't think he'll be happy anywhere.
Maybe somewhere in Polynesia. You can just sit on the beach all day. Then again, brooding youngsters are mighty tough to please.
Quote from: Todd on August 14, 2011, 11:15:44 AM
Maybe somewhere in Polynesia. You can just sit on the beach all day. Then again, brooding youngsters are mighty tough to please.
Polynesia stopped being great for brooding youngsters when all the local gals got STDs.
Mirror Image, in all honesty, living in the UK and its culture (for all its flaws [see: riot]) has made me realize that moving to a culture which suits you need not be as seismic a shift as some people might have it. True, I'll always basically be an American by birth, but I would come back to Europe in a heartbeat and once I have some job skills which would transfer profitably back over here, I kind of hope I'll be able to do so.
That really does not have much to do with politics. But my close encounters with Rick Perry and the hyperreligious whackjobs who love him are sort of reinforcing that instinct right now and reminding me of certain aspects of America I certainly do not miss.
Hey MI could you delete the white space in your sig? You have a huge amount of white space after the quote.
Quote from: DavidW on August 14, 2011, 01:28:31 PM
Hey MI could you delete the white space in your sig? You have a huge amount of white space after the quote.
Actually that's caused by the "Currently Listening To:" paragraph on the left. All his posts have to be long enough to accommodate it. The signature is only one line long. Kinda similar to your post, actually. :)
Oh shit you're right! Let me get rid of some of my white space. :)
Quote from: DavidW on August 14, 2011, 01:40:06 PM
Oh shit you're right! Let me get rid of some of my white space. :)
The funny thing is, emboldened by the size of your avatar, I created a bigger version of my avatar, the same horizontal dimension as yours but shorter vertically (though still taller than my current model). But when I uploaded it... the forum software shrank it back down to the size of my current one! Humbug.
Quote from: Brian on August 14, 2011, 01:42:31 PM
The funny thing is, emboldened by the size of your avatar, I created a bigger version of my avatar, the same horizontal dimension as yours but shorter vertically (though still taller than my current model). But when I uploaded it... the forum software shrank it back down to the size of my current one! Humbug.
Ah shuckins! Well there I've traded up avatars too, really short now. Hope MI will abbreviate his currently listening to: the 20th century. ;D Much more to the point. $:)
The days of the liberal Republican -- they did exist! -- were long past even before I came of voting age, and the moderate Republicans disappeared in the last decade or so, so I'd never vote for any Republican. Obama is a huge disappointment in terms of both policy outcomes and political ability, and I don't expect him to improve in a second term, but the Republicans have gotten so insane that it's important to vote against them whenever possible.
I assume the general voting public won't go for another Texas governor so soon -- particularly one who even talks just like W -- but the voting public usually finds a way to confound and astonish me.
My assumption is that Romney will be the eventual nominee. No one likes him, but I think Republican voters will eventually fall into line around the establishment candidate.
I also think it's a safe assumption that the economy is not going to improve in the next 13 months and that Romney will have a very good chance of winning the general election. I predict that any winning Republican candidate will not have much if any coattails, though.
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2011, 01:49:30 PM
The days of the liberal Republican -- they did exist! -- were long past even before I came of voting age, and the moderate Republicans disappeared in the last decade or so, so I'd never vote for any Republican. Obama is a huge disappointment in terms of both policy outcomes and political ability, and I don't expect him to improve in a second term, but the Republicans have gotten so insane that it's important to vote against them whenever possible.
That is exactly how I feel. I would vote for a centrist, classic conservative Republican, but they died out. Obama is a big disappointment but at least he's not a nutter. The Republican party needs to reinvent themselves, but the tea party is not the way to do it.
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2011, 01:49:30 PM
I also think it's a safe assumption that the economy is not going to improve in the next 13 months and that Romney will have a very good chance of winning the general election.
That's just what we need - a guy with one testicle against a guy with none.
Quote from: DavidW on August 14, 2011, 02:01:24 PM
The Republican party needs to reinvent themselves, but the tea party is not the way to do it.
It is more like The Whiskey Party.
Choosing between incompetence and nuttiness is a tough one... I am glad I don't have to choose. I'd feel guilty either way.
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Sarge
Oh
dear. Suggested image search term by Google upon googling "Michele Bachmann": "michele bachmann hot"
It's a sign that you need a break if you can only get your rocks off to somebody whose governmental pledges you agree with...
Edit:
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
All I could see here was:
(http://i.imgur.com/kjAHm.jpg)
Sarge that's even worse than the newsweek pic! ;D
(http://cousinavi.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bachmann-newsweek.jpg?w=454&h=615)
Michael Dukakis broke the cardinal rule of "never have your picture taken with a funny hat on your head" in this famous tank photo that helped sink his presidential bid back in 1988 . (Kind of looks like Sarge's avatar, though.)
(http://tackytouristphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dukakis_tank.jpg)
The new rule should be, "never have your picture taken while stuffing a (whatever that is?) in your mouth."
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Sarge
:D
Wienergate - Part II
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 14, 2011, 04:00:09 PM
:D
Wienergate - Part II
In Part I, most of the weiner was still in her hands.
Shouldn't she be wearing a blue dress?
The guy on the bottom left corner has probably got her vote. ;D
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Sarge
That woman has a healthy appetite!
The days of the GOP representing patrician respectability are well and truly past.
Quote from: Szykneij on August 14, 2011, 05:44:23 AM
Well, you can't get any more American than Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Apple Pie. :)
Change your name to "Flag" and be a shoe-in. Unless everyone starts calling you "Fag". :-\
But that would be desecration - you could have people arrested for it!
Quote from: DavidW on August 14, 2011, 01:28:31 PM
Hey MI could you delete the white space in your sig? You have a huge amount of white space after the quote.
The problem is his ridiculously long "Currently listening to" list.
Quote from: Brian on August 14, 2011, 12:49:01 PM
That really does not have much to do with politics. But my close encounters with Rick Perry and the hyperreligious whackjobs who love him are sort of reinforcing that instinct right now and reminding me of certain aspects of America I certainly do not miss.
There are plenty of hyperreligious whackjobs in Europe too. They just follow a different religion.
Rick Perry - the college years:
(http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/08/Rick-Perry-the-college-years.jpg)
He was in the Aggie Corps? No wonder I hate his smug face.
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2011, 05:42:40 AM
He was in the Aggie Corps? No wonder I hate his smug face.
I don't know what that is, but these pictures gives me some associations I don't like.
Looks like a scene from Animal House, actually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dy2fo6E_pI&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dy2fo6E_pI&feature=player_embedded)
Frankly, that outfit on the right makes him look like a Nazi (the haircut doesn't help). If only the sword was a riding crop....
It's like Mussolini and that guy from Animal House found a way to procreate.
But the Bachmann mag cover is well and truly frightening. The lights appear to be on, but no one is home. Sigh.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Sarge
Thinking of what she will have to swallow as president she seems well suited.
Found this (while investigating the sausage story!):
QuoteCongresswoman Michele Bachmann won what's been called everything from a "solid" to a "resounding" victory in the Ames Iowa Republican Straw Poll. Strange, isn't it, that supposedly credible news analysts on supposedly credible TV networks all said so -- all spoke glowingly about Ms. Bachmann's "important win" -- when Rep. Bachmann was actually rejected by 72% of the voters at this event, a GOP-sponsored affair which draws the most dedicated and devoted partisans in the Iowa Republican Party? When the party's most fervent supporters gather together and nearly three-quarters of them don't vote for you, how is it you can go on TV with a straight face and claim a great victory while being congratulated for your achievement by all those supposedly credible pundits? Explain that, if you can. Just who's crazy here?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/michelle-bachmann-or-the-_b_926496.html
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Sarge
How vulgar and cheap to use this image against her. And sexist too.
I mean she's clearly an extremist but
come on. ::)
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 01:36:58 AM
How vulgar and cheap to use this image against her. And sexist too.
I mean she's clearly an extremist but come on. ::)
There is plenty to use against her, trust us.
And how "vulgar and cheap" was it to use these images against their subjects?:
(http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/dukakis.jpg)
(http://liveshot.cc/images/John%20Kerry%20Wind%20Surfing.jpg)
(http://topelevenlists.com/files/2010/11/mccain-grab-ass-obama.jpg)
(http://www.rabbitworldview.com/sites/dingram/_files/Image/Jimmy%20Carter%20and%20the%20Swamp%20Rabbit%281%29.jpg)
The Dukakis photo had a major political impact; the Kerry photo was widely displayed on Fox News and inspired an "is he out of touch" debate. And the McCain ass grab got wide play, of course. It's a plain truth of politics that "vulgar and cheap" photographs actually effect presidential races. All the above photos were big news. Sure, that is an indictment of our twisted priorities and idiotic ways of choosing presidents, but it means the Bachmann photo is no different from anything that happens every single election.
Are you really saying Michele Bachmann should be exempt from embarrassing photos? If so, take it up with her. She's the one posing for them. Of course, it's possible I'm just confused...
(http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/data/500/george-bush-confused.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on August 16, 2011, 01:48:44 AM
There is plenty to use against her, trust us.
And how "vulgar and cheap" was it to use these images against their subjects?:
(http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/dukakis.jpg)
(http://liveshot.cc/images/John%20Kerry%20Wind%20Surfing.jpg)
(http://topelevenlists.com/files/2010/11/mccain-grab-ass-obama.jpg)
(http://www.rabbitworldview.com/sites/dingram/_files/Image/Jimmy%20Carter%20and%20the%20Swamp%20Rabbit%281%29.jpg)
The Dukakis photo had a major political impact; the Kerry photo was widely displayed on Fox News and inspired an "is he out of touch" debate. And the McCain ass grab got wide play, of course. It's a plain truth of politics that "vulgar and cheap" photographs actually effect presidential races. All the above photos were big news. Sure, that is an indictment of our twisted priorities and idiotic ways of choosing presidents, but it means the Bachmann photo is no different from anything that happens every single election.
Are you really saying Michele Bachmann should be exempt from embarrassing photos? If so, take it up with her. She's the one posing for them. Of course, it's possible I'm just confused...
(http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/data/500/george-bush-confused.jpg)
How is it going to be big news that she ate a corn-dog and how can anybody even talk about it? Can you imagine a news commentator addressing the sexual imagery that's producing the giggles?
Funny is funny. What really makes it is that her demeanour is by no means nonchalant - she is working that dog.
And in this day and age, whose to say this won't boost her vote?
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 01:36:58 AM
How vulgar and cheap to use this image against her. And sexist too.
I mean she's clearly an extremist but come on. ::)
You have somethng against sausage? ;D
Sarge
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 01:53:52 AM
How is it going to be big news that she ate a corn-dog and how can anybody even talk about it? Can you imagine a news commentator addressing the sexual imagery that's producing the giggles?
Why was it big news in 2004 that John Kerry windsurfed? Why was it big news that people photoshopped Kerry into pictures with various anti-war icons? Why did the media report on the cheese Obama put on his philly cheese steak sandwich?
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/barack-obama-cheesesteak.jpg)
Oh, and what about this series of photos?
(http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/15/clintonbeer2.jpg)
(http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/dnc_truth_patrol/hillaryBeer.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_c8Z6KHLzb8I/SAJTS03BWOI/AAAAAAAAAA8/V331dN_YZJc/s400/hillarydrinkingob3.jpg)
I know I'm avoiding mentioning the sexual angle, but c'mon. That would have been avoided if she didn't look
completely freaking insane while she was eating the corn dog.
Oh, and I almost forgot. If you want to talk sexualization of female Republican candidates...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/20/article-1229148-0745B3F1000005DC-200_634x863.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lymv9VmsrMQ/SgXcHRkArSI/AAAAAAAAAGk/OeUoT6dgncQ/s400/Nailin+Palin.jpg)
Brian, I am not against hilarious and unfortunate snapshots of politicians in general. I just think that particular one against Bachmann is specially unfair, and the same people who are posting it on Daily Kos (it's poping up everywhere) would be screeching about sexism if instead it was some popular right wing blogs that found similar photos of Debbie Schultz Wasserman or Nancy Pelosi.
Lamestream Media has blacklisted Ron Paul.
In yesterday's W.Post, Paul was mentioned once in their long front page article lifting up the 'Top 3', Bach, Romn, and Perry. So, basically he won a tie, and was totally snubbed by the greatest use of trees in history.
I'm not showing who I like, I'm just pointing out the fact.
btw- check out the reports of Perry's flagrant adulturizations,... he certainly comes off as your typical antichrist politician,... and he totally sux as a fake Christian...
Herman Cain probably has oodles of underworld friends...
Romney is such a shill too...
The fact that the Lamestream Media is propping up the Big 3,... oy, you shoulda seen Chris Matthews yesterday (yea, I'm watching waaaay too much infuriation) trying to tell me what the field is shaping up as...
ONE WORD: DIEBOLD!!! Israeli made voting machines,... duuuuuh!!!!!
Everyone but Paul seems to answer to Tel Aviv,... disgusting,... you can't serve two masters...
The Two Party System is a Hegelian Dialectic.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 16, 2011, 05:22:18 AM
Lamestream Media has blacklisted Ron Paul.
I saw that on The Daily Show! I understand that his odds are poor compared to those top three, but the media seem to be bending over backwards to be biased.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 16, 2011, 05:22:18 AM
Lamestream Media has blacklisted Ron Paul.
Dude, I heard a former (Republican) Senator dismiss Paul as too goofy.
Which may make him an attractive candidate compared to Michelle Bachmann . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2011, 05:59:51 AMDude, I heard a former (Republican) Senator dismiss Paul as too goofy.
(http://www.rawstory.com/rs//wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Ron_Paul_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg) (http://images.suite101.com/134156_goofy.gif)
I can sort of see a resemblance.
I loved the prior debate when Mr Paul went on about legalizing heroin. Not quite a Howard Dean scream, but if Paul had been a serious contender before, he wouldn't have been after. He's so silly.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 13, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I know very little about Perry. Why the negativity?
http://front.moveon.org/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-rick-perry/#.TkqFXBXj914.facebook
Choosing from these pathetic losers is like choosing between bubonic plague, the Ebola virus, the electro magnetic pulse,
nuclear disaster, Tsunamis, earthquakes, and the black plague. God save us from any of them being elected !
Quote from: Superhorn on August 16, 2011, 03:34:56 PM
Choosing from these pathetic losers is like choosing between bubonic plague, the Ebola virus, the electro magnetic pulse,
nuclear disaster, Tsunamis, earthquakes, and the black plague. God save us from any of them being elected !
:P
And I was the one called cynical by DavidW. :)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/11/100-things-you-can-say-to-irritate-a-republican/ ;)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 14, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Why I'm voting for Michele Bachmann:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/may11/bachmann-081311.jpg)
Sarge
Should this also be in 'The Long View' thread? 8)
The reason why Ron Paul is being shunned is because of his stance on Israel. The Washington Post is through and through controlled by neocons when it comes to foreign policy issues, as is the modern Republican establishment in general. Paul has already ruffled feathers by publicly standing against the hysteria against Iran, and I get the feeling that the National Review/Fox News crowd would much rather see a Democrat elected as president than Ron Paul as the former would be less of a threat to their foreign policy priorities.
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 16, 2011, 04:05:12 PM
Um.. that's an easy choice. I've played Deus Ex before. EMP all the way!
Agreed.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 05:29:35 PMThe reason why Ron Paul is being shunned is because of his stance on Israel.
In best Mr Mackey voice: Mmmkay.
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 05:39:52 PM
In best Mr Mackey voice: Mmmkay.
Figures that you're a fan of that empty headed show.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 05:53:37 PMFigures that you're a fan of that empty headed show.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 05:59:02 PMI think you're an idiot.
Well, that's not very elaborate.
Since you obviously hold your own intelligence in very high esteem, can you please add a bit more color to your response?
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 16, 2011, 05:59:46 PM
Was that really necessary?
I suppose not.
Though it is funny Todd demands elaboration when he feels satisfied with South Park quotes as posts.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 06:05:28 PMThough it is funny Todd demands elaboration when he feels satisfied with South Park quotes as posts.
No, I don't demand anything, I just find it funny that someone who posts an obviously absurd statement like you did can only retort something along the lines of "You're dumb."
I would really like to learn from you, who obviously knows so much about politics, and no doubt life in general, how I am an idiot and what, if anything, I can do to rise to your high standards.
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 06:10:37 PM
No, I don't demand anything, I just find it funny that someone who posts an obviously absurd statement like you did can only retort something along the lines of "You're dumb."
I would really like to learn from you, who obviously knows so much about politics, and no doubt life in general, how I am an idiot and what, if anything, I can do to rise to your high standards.
Okay fine. First lesson: South Park quotes as posts will not do.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 06:12:34 PMOkay fine. First lesson: South Park quotes as posts will not do.
Technically, I wasn't quoting a specific episode of South Park. But if that will not do, how about, say, Married With Children. Is that intellectual enough?
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 06:14:32 PM
Technically, I wasn't quoting a specific episode of South Park. But if that will not do, how about, say, Married With Children. Is that intellectual enough?
You tell me. You're the one most familiar with this stuff.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 06:16:23 PMYou tell me. You're the one most familiar with this stuff.
But can I? After all, I'm an idiot, as you pointed out, so I need some sage advice from
you. Just what is a reputable source for a quote. I beseech you, please share.
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 06:18:40 PM
After all, I'm an idiot.
Don't be too hard on yourself.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 06:25:40 PMDon't be too hard on yourself.
I won't be once you share your wisdom with me. Please enlighten me. Share your vast life experience and knowledge, otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that the quality of your earlier post that started all this does in fact demonstrate the extent of your intellectual capacity.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 06:12:34 PM
Okay fine. First lesson: South Park quotes as posts will not do.
Nah, actually, South Park references in posts
will do.
And now Abe replies... "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" ;)
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 06:29:13 PM
I won't be once you share your wisdom with me. Please enlighten me. Share your vast life experience and knowledge, otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that the quality of your earlier post that started all this does in fact demonstrate the extent of your intellectual capacity.
Sometimes a teacher must simply give up on a limited pupil.
Quote from: -abe- on August 16, 2011, 06:36:06 PMSometimes a teacher must simply give up on a limited pupil.
Is that your experience in school?
Quote from: Bulldog on August 13, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I know very little about Perry. Why the negativity?
Look up Cameron Todd Willingham. The New Yorker article is a good place to start:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
Quote from: Superhorn on August 16, 2011, 03:34:56 PM
Choosing from these pathetic losers is like choosing between bubonic plague, the Ebola virus, the electro magnetic pulse,
nuclear disaster, Tsunamis, earthquakes, and the black plague. God save us from any of them being elected !
Some of you folks are really beating up on the Republican candidates. Perhaps each of them is a pathetic loser, but I have a hard time thinking of Obama as a winning president.
Overall, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. If Obama continues as a timid president, I'll be shopping around.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 16, 2011, 07:02:57 PM
Some of you folks are really beating up on the Republican candidates. Perhaps each of them is a pathetic loser, but I have a hard time thinking of Obama as a winning president.
Overall, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. If Obama continues as a timid president, I'll be shopping around.
Obama is timid, so you're shopping around for batfuck crazy? Cuz that's what the Republicans are offering.
Quote from: Daverz on August 16, 2011, 07:24:58 PMCuz that's what the Republicans are offering.
While that's the case with some of them, I can't see how it's possible to characterize either Romney or Huntsman in such a way.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2011, 05:59:51 AM
Dude, I heard a former (Republican) Senator dismiss Paul
I love how the Establishment,... Dems & Pubs alike... are blaming everything on the a) No One Can get elected who will revoke the Central Bank's Charter
b) No One Can get elected who will repeal the IRS
The Establishment (you know, the Yalie & Harvard Lawyers who play act as our representatives, and such),... somehow,... has made the people not to vote for anyone who would dismantle this country from, say, 1913 on.
Why wouldn't people vote for the person who would get rid of the IRS? Because Mr. Bernays showed how to dupe people, and play reverse psychology,... our government is basically a bunch of PR Specialists with Law Degrees,... Professional Liars bought and payed for by
...oh, I tire myself...
Well, at least football will keep the American Great Unwashed busy wallowing in their addiction, while the Government Caste pillages Soc Sec and Medicare
oh, and I was supposed to stay away from this Topic for a few days. Apparently I dig at the News too much, and scream and yell all the time, and the people around get tired of it (and it IS exhausting to hate so much all day!! ;)).
Basically, I don't believe anything concerning this government (not just the admin),... let's say, at least since...mm... well, at least Carter was transparently bad, no?
ReagenBush 1ClintonBush 2ObamaHey kids! Didya hear that John Bolton is mulling a run? :o :o :o
Basically, I'm starting to think that another term of Obama may be better than any Tel Aviv genuflecting Republican. At least Obama is acting like he's having a problem with the Theocracy-with-Nukes. Of course, they know how to bring him into line (which is what we've been seeing). Make no doubt: ANY Next President, unless Obama gets reelected, will, without a doubt, be taking direct orders from Tel Aviv (and, in Perry's case,... gosh, he pretty well declares this as his platform (and Cain too)). That's when we'll attack Iran,... and get this 'ole American Economy Hummin' Again,...heeeee haw!!! ??? :-\ :-X :-[ :'( ??? ::) :-\ :-X :( >:( ??? :-[ :-\ :-X >:D :'(
btw- terrorists, schmerrorits,... it's obvious that Al Queada is that guy from
1984.
ok,... I think the take away from this Post is:I would RATHER see The Hated One (Obama) go again, than to go STRAIGHT into WWIII by having any number of Freemason-Mormon-FakeAmericanChristian puppets take the reins. Paul is the only known American Political Figure (next on (way) down the line would be Jesse Ventura) who takes on the Rothchild Central Bank (the Octopus),... of course he won't win (even if he did,... that's why we have the Israeli made Diebold voting machines).
Israel wants Perry, I think,... unless Obama starts sucking up real purdy like...
I'm having a hard time seeing the next election without sooome kind of false flag fake-terrorist event (Chicago?) to get the populace shaken up for what, I suppose, may be the biggest (fake) election in history (it will be 2012 after all,... not sayin',... just sayin').
They're ALREADY in full campaign mode in AUGUST 2011!!!!!!!!!!!!!!yikes!!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think I caught a buzz from ranting ???. Where's that paper bag?...
Why can't the American People start the Angry Villagers Party and rise up and elect farmers and such to office?
oh,... that's right...
didn't, was it Jefferson or Adams?, who said that once the public starts getting 'stuff' from the government, they will ALWAYS elect the person promising the greatest largesse.
The Americans of today don't DESERVE the Founders' Country,... America MUST fall, at this point, become a Service Nation...
I'm voting for Andrew Jackson. ;)
I'm looking over this Post, and...yikes!... it's a horrible, long rambling mess,...
...mm...
I feel good about it! My job is done here. ;)
Happy Voting!
May all your grandchildren NOT have to built Emperor Wang's Monument
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 07:35:16 PM
While that's the case with some of them, I can't see how it's possible to characterize either Romney or Huntsman in such a way.
Well, they are both Mormons, aren't they? Which for some people would qualify them as at least borderline crazy.
Huntsman and Romney are both too moderate, is their problem, because they're trying to become the candidate of a party whose membership by and large now believes that being moderate and centrist is a bad thing, and that being ideologically pure is good politics. Also, Romney is the apparent preference of the GOP establishment, which again the general membership seems to think is a bad thing. I don't think Huntsman has much of a chance. What Romney needs is for the "crazy" candidates to knock each other out and leave him as the last man standing. What he has to be afraid of is for the last "crazy" candidate emerging with enough momentum and support to knock him out instead.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 16, 2011, 07:43:27 PMthe Rothchild Central Bank
I couldn't bother to read the whole thing, but mentioning the Rothschilds, wow! Hey, are you working on a book about how Mozart was a fraud?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 16, 2011, 07:59:22 PMWell, they are both Mormons, aren't they? Which for some people would qualify them as at least borderline crazy.
Religious bigots may think some such, yes.
Huntsman has no chance. Romney has a chance. Neither are crazy/far right/etc.
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 08:02:10 PM
Religious bigots may think some such, yes.
Huntsman has no chance. Romney has a chance. Neither are crazy/far right/etc.
Mormons wear Magic Underwear Todd. ;)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 16, 2011, 08:03:52 PMMormons wear Magic Underwear Todd.
It's not too hard to think of some rather silly tall tales and beliefs in other religions. I shan't go into detail here.
Quote from: Todd on August 16, 2011, 07:35:16 PM
While that's the case with some of them, I can't see how it's possible to characterize either Romney or Huntsman in such a way.
(In my original post I feel I should have said either batshit crazy or bugfuck crazy. My apologies for mixing the two.)
Neither Romney nor Huntsman can win the nomination without pandering to the batshit Republican base.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 16, 2011, 07:02:57 PM
Some of you folks are really beating up on the Republican candidates. Perhaps each of them is a pathetic loser, but I have a hard time thinking of Obama as a winning president.
Overall, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. If Obama continues as a timid president, I'll be shopping around.
I think (and hope!) that we will see less timidity--Obama seems genuinely pissed off at the party crap that went on recently. Of course, with the Tea Baggers basically in charge of Congress, I don't what he can do--he can't simply kick them out and replace them with rational, intelligent beings who actually know something about politics, economics, history, etc. (Oh, if only it were that simple!)
Quote from: Bulldog on August 16, 2011, 07:02:57 PM
Some of you folks are really beating up on the Republican candidates. Perhaps each of them is a pathetic loser, but I have a hard time thinking of Obama as a winning president.
Overall, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. If Obama continues as a timid president, I'll be shopping around.
I think his biggest problem is that he thinks too much like a legislator and not enough as an executive. As a senator, he has to compromise - that is part of the job. But as President, there needs to be a different approach to compromise.
I gather Rick Perry has accused Ben Bernanke of treason. That's smart.
Quote from: Brian on August 17, 2011, 12:13:55 AM
I gather Rick Perry has accused Ben Bernanke of treason. That's smart.
Yeah - using that logic, isn't someone who voted against raising the debt ceiling a traitor too (that is, they voted for default by voting against the increase)? I think these sorts of statements are incredibly dangerous. I wonder if any of them like Eggs Benedict? :)
Quote from: Daverz on August 16, 2011, 08:25:53 PMNeither Romney nor Huntsman can win the nomination without pandering to the batshit Republican base.
Well, that's true. That doesn't make either of them crazy, just politicians.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 17, 2011, 12:19:47 AMI think these sorts of statements are incredibly dangerous.
I think it's standard rhetoric and not
dangerous at all. The Fed has been a punching bag for a lot of people for a long time, especially when times are tough or rates are rising. It's not quite as predictable and tired as "Washington is broken," but it establishes, perhaps in some minds, anti-establishment credibility. If Perry does win the nomination, I predict he moves more to the center rhetorically. If elected, I'd be surprised if he does much about the Fed.
So just a Texas blowhard, you'd say? ; )
Quote from: Todd on August 17, 2011, 06:38:23 AM
I think it's standard rhetoric and not dangerous at all. The Fed has been a punching bag for a lot of people for a long time, especially when times are tough or rates are rising. It's not quite as predictable and tired as "Washington is broken," but it establishes, perhaps in some minds, anti-establishment credibility. If Perry does win the nomination, I predict he moves more to the center rhetorically. If elected, I'd be surprised if he does much about the Fed.
No, I understand that. But calling a public official a traitor for doing what they feel is right for the country, just because it opposes your ideology, is a bad idea. It's a slippery slope.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 17, 2011, 07:24:13 AMBut calling a public official a traitor for doing what they feel is right for the country, just because it opposes your ideology, is a bad idea. It's a slippery slope.
See Karl's response.
Does anyone know the date and times of the debates btw (and what channels)? I think I might have already missed one.
Quote from: Daverz on August 16, 2011, 07:24:58 PM
Obama is timid, so you're shopping around for batfuck crazy? Cuz that's what the Republicans are offering.
It's very simple. I'll be casting my vote in November 2012, more than a year from now. Much could happen during that time period. More Republican candidates could jump into the race, one or more third-party/independent candidates might enter the race and it's even possible that a Democrat might challenge Obama. So I'm keeping my options open right now.
Just wanted to add that the "burning" issues in November 2012 might not be the same issues that are currently at the top of the list.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 16, 2011, 07:43:27 PM
I'm looking over this Post, and...yikes!... it's a horrible, long rambling mess,...
...mm...
I feel good about it! My job is done here. ;)
Happy Voting!
May all your grandchildren NOT have to built Emperor Wang's Monument
Thanks. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
I think it will come down to Romney and Obama, the crazies having cancelled each other out. So the choice will be center-left versus center-right. I prefer Obama, because we're in a situation that calls for the kind of intervention in the economy that Obama and Congressional Democrats will ultimately be forced by circumstances to resort to. When everything else fails (tax cuts, program cuts, laying off government workers) these people will grudgingly, reluctantly move to boost the economy directly with government spending. The Republicans oppose this because 1) it's against their deepest principles and 2) it would help Obama by helping the economy recover. That's against their deepest principles, too, though principle 1 suggests that government spending is bad and principle 2 admits that it's good. After all, in the crisis atmosphere at the end of Bush II what did the Repubs do? They agreed with Democrats that government stimulus was necessary. The Democrats were not deterred by the fact that Bush was in the White House. They voted for the rescue plan, too.
I conclude that politicians, as various as their ideologies are, will often converge on an empirically valid approach to a problem, but only in a crisis that scares the shit out of them, and as soon as the worst consequences of the danger have passed they will revert to their "deepest principles", antiempirical notions that are comforting and popular, useless though they are when the crisis looms again. So, it's nonsense all day (never mind economic collapse, what about the "long term debt crisis"?) until naked terror forces the office holders, against their better judgment one might say, to face the truth.
Quote from: nairB on August 17, 2011, 12:13:55 AM
I gather Rick Perry has accused Ben Bernanke of treason. That's smart.
That's what anyone would gather from the spin of the mainstream and looney left press. Here's what Perry actually said when asked what he thought about Bernanke's Fed considering yet another monetary "stimulus":
Quote
If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we — we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion.
Historically, expanding the money supply at a rate greater than economic growth has (a) caused inflation (heck, it practically
defines inflation!), (b) eroded economic gains of the middle class, (c) pushed middle class taxpayers into higher income brackets, thus surreptitiously raising taxes, and (d) reduced the real value of government notes, thus easing the debt burden by screwing our creditors.
For a different take on the matter than you'll find in
Pravda, you might take a look at http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=50902 , the first source I found that actually quoted Perry rather than maliciously paraphrasing his remarks to better demonize him in the minds of the unthinking masses.
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=50902
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 17, 2011, 02:35:57 PM(c) pushed middle class taxpayers into higher income brackets, thus surreptitiously raising taxes
In the US this has not been the case since the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
The purpose of quantitative easing, which relies on Monetarist (ie, conservative) thinking, is to flood the system with cash when demand is low and fiscal expansion is not possible. This is a good thing.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 17, 2011, 02:35:57 PM
That's what anyone would gather from the spin of the mainstream and looney left press.
What is the looney left press?
Quote
Here's what Perry actually said
Oh, he said "almost". Not "treasonous", just "almost treasonous". And that wasn't violence he was implying at the beginning, he probably just means that they would snub him at cocktail parties in Houston.
It's hard to believe anyone, left or right, would think printing more money to pay off the debt would be a good idea. Remember Argentina! Remember Germany! The lack of mainstream ridicule of Bernanke's suggestion shows that wishful thinking trumps historical precedent. (A little like the crash that couldn't happen?)
And no, calling a public official "treasonous" is poor form unless that person has actually been caught selling state secrets or wearing the enemy uniform. But reasonableness and good taste won't win Teabaggers' votes.
Quote from: Daverz on August 17, 2011, 06:13:34 PM
Oh, he said "almost". Not "treasonous", just "almost treasonous". And that wasn't violence he was implying at the beginning, he probably just means that they would snub him at cocktail parties in Houston.
Heh. Saying "we would treat" "this guy" "pretty ugly down in Texas" is not exactly the counter-argument of a sophisticate. I resent it further because of Perry's implication that Texas would line right up behind him. I would probably ask Ben Bernanke to buy me a beer.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 17, 2011, 02:35:57 PM
That's what anyone would gather from the spin of the mainstream and looney left press.
so the difference is "almost treason" instead of "treason"?
wow, those radical left wing Pravda lookalike media are really getting out of control.
and Perry's quote is just plain levelheaded.
So what he actually said was indeed "almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion." And setting aside questions of the looney left press, Karl Rove (not one known for kneejerk sensitivity to the l. l. p.) has upbraided the remark. My opinion (not etched in stone, to be sure) is that the remark was borderline foolish, but was made at a point in the process where such foolishness is not necessarilt irredeemable.
Speaking of the loonier wings of the left . . . very disappointed in the smear-image campaign against Bachmann. In all likelihood, the woman will go down in flames entirely on her own merits; and distributing those denigrating images only reflects poorly on her detractors.
Quote from: Brian on August 18, 2011, 12:16:58 AM
Heh. Saying "we would treat" "this guy" "pretty ugly down in Texas" is not exactly the counter-argument of a sophisticate. I resent it further because of Perry's implication that Texas would line right up behind him. I would probably ask Ben Bernanke to buy me a beer.
When I reflect that you have a memory trail of Perry comparable to mine of Kerry . . . (* shudder *)Mind you, I think the Swift-Boating fracas was skulduggery at its ugliest. That said, that election was the only time in my life I could bring myself to vote for Kerry, the alternative being so utterly not to my liking.
Quote from: gn i n n e h lr a k on August 18, 2011, 04:16:19 AM
Speaking of the loonier wings of the left . . . very disappointed in the smear-image campaign against Bachmann. In all likelihood, the woman will go down in flames entirely on her own merits; and distributing those denigrating images only reflects poorly on her detractors.
She's promising $2 gas now...
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 18, 2011, 04:32:16 AM
She's promising $2 gas now...
I don't like to think either how narrow the percentage is, of people who take her seriously, nor what taking a meal with such folks would be like . . . .
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 18, 2011, 04:32:16 AM
She's promising $2 gas now...
The lowest I've seen it (about 14 years ago) was just under $1 a gallon (90 something cents). Now, it's a strain for it to go under $3.50. That's an extremely disproportionate jump.
$2 would actually be reasonable. But it'll never happen.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 18, 2011, 04:32:16 AMShe's promising $2 gas now...
Since presidents set gas prices, she's got my vote.
(* chortle *)
Quote from: gninnehlrakarlhenning on August 18, 2011, 04:16:19 AM
So what he actually said was indeed "almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion." And setting aside questions of the looney left press, Karl Rove (not one known for kneejerk sensitivity to the l. l. p.) has upbraided the remark. My opinion (not etched in stone, to be sure) is that the remark was borderline foolish, but was made at a point in the process where such foolishness is not necessarilt irredeemable.
Speaking of the loonier wings of the left . . . very disappointed in the smear-image campaign against Bachmann. In all likelihood, the woman will go down in flames entirely on her own merits; and distributing those denigrating images only reflects poorly on her detractors.
Bear in mind, that Rove, in addition to usurping your name, is a member of the Bush team, and the Bushes don't like Perry. I read a AP article two days ago that included Rove's remark, plus some other "Establishment" Republicans. Interestingly, all of them had direct connections to either Bush pere or Bush fils.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 18, 2011, 04:32:16 AM
She's promising $2 gas now...
Hadn't seen that. I would, from prior GOP rhetoric, assume that what she said something on the line, "if we remove all environmental regulation, lease out all possible drilling spots, reduce capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes to zero, and not let people sue the oil companies, we would have gas as cheap as we want without having to improve fuel efficiency or do anything about the demand side, no matter how much oil China and India end up buying!"
Which is, after all, the basic GOP policy for energy.
Hadn't divined that the greater Bush clan don't like Perry. So much sadness in the world . . . .
My problem with Bachmann is not that she's crazy. My problem is that when asked serious questions she either answers with a prepackaged soundbite that usually doesn't actually provide an aswer, or flips into a prepackaged attack on Obama, or just plain evades/refuses to answer the question. This does not breed confidence in her abilities, nor does it provide answers to some of the policy questions I need to know about before I would consider voting for a Presidential candidate.
I could conceivably vote for Romney, if I was sure he wouldn't get us involved in another foreign misadventure. But it seems even socialists like Obama are neo cons on foreign policy now :)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 18, 2011, 07:19:09 AM
Hadn't seen that. I would, from prior GOP rhetoric, assume that what she said something on the line, "if we remove all environmental regulation, lease out all possible drilling spots, reduce capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes to zero, and not let people sue the oil companies, we would have gas as cheap as we want without having to improve fuel efficiency or do anything about the demand side, no matter how much oil China and India end up buying!"
Which is, after all, the basic GOP policy for energy.
According the article I read: "Bachmann did not lay out a specific plan to drop prices on Tuesday. But her campaign website says that as president, she would ease restrictions on drilling and roll back federal regulations on the shale gas industry." They also wrote: "The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon," Bachmann said. "Look what it is today."
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 18, 2011, 07:27:13 AM
According the article I read: "Bachmann did not lay out a specific plan to drop prices on Tuesday. But her campaign website says that as president, she would ease restrictions on drilling and roll back federal regulations on the shale gas industry." They also wrote: "The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon," Bachmann said. "Look what it is today."
$1.79 a gallon? Excuse me? The last time I can remember paying under $2.00 a gallon, George W. Bush was president. Gas prices in Florida are a little higher than the national average, but not by that much.
ETA: Actually, it may have been under Clinton....
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 18, 2011, 07:25:13 AM
My problem with Bachmann is not that she's crazy. My problem is that when asked serious questions she either answers with a prepackaged soundbite that usually doesn't actually provide an aswer, or flips into a prepackaged attack on Obama, or just plain evades/refuses to answer the question. foreign policy now :)
That is a rhetorical strategy employed by virtually all politicians. You can't blame Bachmann for this.
you can however blame her for mixing up Elvis's birthday and the day he died, and most other matters pertaining to the real world.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 18, 2011, 07:39:14 AM
$1.79 a gallon? Excuse me? The last time I can remember paying under $2.00 a gallon, George W. Bush was president. Gas prices in Florida are a little higher than the national average, but not by that much.
ETA: Actually, it may have been under Clinton....
$ 2,60 a litre (look it up) in Norway now, and not much cheaper in the rest of Europe.
Quote from: The new erato on August 18, 2011, 09:07:00 AM
$ 2,60 a litre (look it up) in Norway now, and not much cheaper in the rest of Europe.
Holy shit!!! Seriously!?!? In Canada, (Manitoba anyway), we are bitching like crazy that we have to pay $1.14 CDN per litre
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 18, 2011, 09:08:20 AM
Holy shit!!! Seriously!?!? In Canada, (Manitoba anyway), we are bitching like crazy that we have to pay $1.14 CDN per litre
Yep. And I have a Merc S-Class.....it really likes the stuff.
Quote from: The new erato on August 18, 2011, 09:10:25 AM
Yep. And I have a Merc S-Class.....it really likes the stuff.
Too bad we can't fuel cars with soda pop! :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 18, 2011, 09:21:10 AM
Too bad we can't fuel cars with soda pop! :D
Someone at some point probably worked that out, and Detroit bought out and destroyed the blueprints.
Hey, look what I found (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-rick-perry/2011/08/17/gIQA0izuNJ_story.html?hpid=z4) in the loony left press! ; )
An op-ed piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/michele-bachmanns-bizarre-gas-price-fiction/2011/08/18/gIQADrJzNJ_blog.html?hpid=z3) on La Bachmann's gas-price yarn
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2011, 11:49:47 AMHey, look what I found (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-rick-perry/2011/08/17/gIQA0izuNJ_story.html?hpid=z4) in the loony left press! ; )
Who would ever consider a governor of any state who has served ten years a hillbilly dimwit?
A fair question. Someone, I suppose, whose wits are none too bright . . . .
Worth noting perhaps:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/anjiaoshi/incomegrowth.jpg)
Did I mention JOHN BOLTON considering a run??
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH....................
Ya think DICK CHENEY could win against Obama? :o
Quote from: snyprrr on August 19, 2011, 07:49:42 AMYa think DICK CHENEY could win against Obama?
His heart would give out on the stump, so no.
God, please let news come out that Michele Bachmann is actually a closet lesbian !
Quote from: The new erato on August 19, 2011, 04:42:38 AM
Worth noting perhaps:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/anjiaoshi/incomegrowth.jpg)
There are 2 things to note about this chart. The first is that Dems raise everyone's income more than Repubs do. The second is that Dems raise lower incomes more than higher ones
while still raising incomes for all groups. The charge that they level down is false. That said, what rationale remains for contractionist policies that shrink the pie while giving ever larger slices to those who have the most now? The Repubs boast that their economic model, though it may favor the rich at first, eventually favors everyone by the process widely known as "trickle down". The chart, and many others I've seen over the years that tell the same story, shows that the combination of economic nostrums Repubs use has the effect of pushing economic gains to the top incomes and leaving them there until the policies are reversed. Furthermore, there are less gains to distribute.
One would like to think that both major parties want to improve the economy for all citizens. It may be that most Repubs and Dems want that, but it isn't the case that they have equally good means to accomplish the goal, and the picture is complicated further by the presence of subgroups within the parties that are more interested in disfavoring opponents than they are in making things better for all. The Repubs practice the politics of resentment to a greater degree, and while the rhetoric of resentment of the rich is a part of what the Dems use (Roosevelt was the master) the programmatic results are widely divergent, as the chart shows. The poor don't want to make the rich poorer, they just want to get richer themselves. The Repub model is starkly different. The guiding ethos appears to be that you can't be really rich unless you're surrounded by poverty, and that is exactly what their policies aim for. This isn't said in so many words, it's just how it turns out. And, as the Marxists say, it's no accident. The old racist Democrats of the Deep South switched to the Republican Party in recent decades, have largely taken over the party machinery, and have submerged the racist rhetoric in favor of a reactionary economic and social attack against policies that distribute higher gains more widely. This means Repubs give up higher gains for themselves, but that's OK, because they are defending a social position that's threatened by wide prosperity.
Quote from: drogulus on August 19, 2011, 02:44:07 PM
The Repubs practice the politics of resentment to a greater degree, and while the rhetoric of resentment of the rich is a part of what the Dems use (Roosevelt was the master) the programmatic results are widely divergent, as the chart shows. The poor don't want to make the rich poorer, they just want to get richer themselves. The Repub model is starkly different. The guiding ethos appears to be that you can't be really rich unless you're surrounded by poverty, and that is exactly what their policies aim for. This isn't said in so many words, it's just how it turns out.
I think that's a pretty accurate analysis, as long as one takes "surrounded by poverty" not in a physical literal sense. People don't want really poor folks as neighbours, but it does give a lot of people great satisfaction to know there are real losers in society.
Last nights I saw portions of the New Hampshire debate for GOP candidates, and it is was a pretty saddening spectacle - talk about denial.
Romney shows a common touch. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/reports-romney-plans-to-quadruple-size-of-calif-home/2011/08/21/gIQAfTk5TJ_story.html)
Hah! I think I know whither that link leadeth, without as yet mashing it!
Whew, that's a relief. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20096293-503544.html) I wonder if he still wants to repeal the 17th, an idea which apparently is floated in his great tome from last year. (Alas, I have not had time to read it. Perhaps others can comment on its literary and intellectual quality.) His other desired changes to the Constitution and government include a balanced budget amendment, an idea as bad as the Three Fifths clause or Prohibition; stripping federal judges of lifetime appointments, which is Rooseveltian in its audacity, if not finesse; and, as is required by a social (so-called) conservative, an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Now that he's backpedaling on one item, I wonder how long it will take for him to backpedal on his other colossally stupid ideas. At least he knows how to waffle.
It also looks like Jon Huntsman is close to throwing in the towel – he said that he would consider being Michelle Bachmann's running mate. Shouldn't he have waited until at least one actual primary took place before groveling? And can you believe his nerve, saying that he believes in evolution and global warming. Pure crazy talk! Science is bogus, I thought everyone knew that.
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2011, 07:41:32 AM
It also looks like Jon Huntsman is close to throwing in the towel – he said that he would consider being Michelle Bachmann's running mate.
Damn. I had respect for that man.
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2011, 07:41:32 AM
Whew, that's a relief. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20096293-503544.html) I wonder if he still wants to repeal the 17th, an idea which apparently is floated in his great tome from last year. (Alas, I have not had time to read it. Perhaps others can comment on its literary and intellectual quality.) His other desired changes to the Constitution and government include a balanced budget amendment, an idea as bad as the Three Fifths clause or Prohibition; stripping federal judges of lifetime appointments, which is Rooseveltian in its audacity, if not finesse; and, as is required by a social (so-called) conservative, an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Now that he's backpedaling on one item, I wonder how long it will take for him to backpedal on his other colossally stupid ideas. At least he knows how to waffle.
Dislike of the 16th and 17th amendments seem to go hand in hand--there's a certain trend in conservative thinking which sees them as part of the perverse Progressive plot to gut the Constitution from the inside and destroy Freedom As Our Founding Fathers new it.
I could handle a definite time limit on how long judges can serve--retirement at 70 or limiting terms to twelve or fifteen years. I don't have stats, but I think a lot of judges are already getting ready to retire, or go on reserve status (meaning, get called to sit as a judge only when there's too much of a caseload or a special case needs an extra judge), by the time they've served fifteen years or so. Lifetime appointments are not really lifetime, execpt for the Supreme Court.
What I wouldn't want is for anyone to be able to vote a judge out of office, which can already happen at the state level (see Iowa for a recent example).
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 24, 2011, 08:09:41 AMWhat I wouldn't want is for anyone to be able to vote a judge out of office, which can already happen at the state level (see Iowa for a recent example).
Where I live judges are elected as well, and it can be a mess. Often, though, they run unopposed. Judges should be insulated from day-to-day politics.
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2011, 08:25:20 AM
Where I live judges are elected as well, and it can be a mess. Often, though, they run unopposed. Judges should be insulated from day-to-day politics.
And when it comes time to vote, how does one find information about the judges? I often leave these blank, but if I find an endorsement on the state or local GOP website I can at least cross them off in the voter guide. But a Dem endorsement is no guarantee the judge isn't some corporate stooge on the make. Maybe I should call the candidates up and grill them myself. :D
I was thinking more of the merit retention elections, by which appellate level judges have to face a vote every so many years to retain the seat the governor appointed them to. We have it here in Florida. The idea is to let the public have a chance to get rid of bad judges. I mentioned Iowa because earlier this year (it may have actually been last year--I don't actually remember when it happened) the state Supreme Court judges who voted in favor of permitting gay marriage in that state lost their retention elections due to a heavy campaign against them by the religious right and social conservatives (insofar as those are not the same thing nowadays) as punishment for their decision.
Dave--check with your local and state bar associations. Here in Florida, the Bar conducts regular polls of its members on the judges they deal with, and publishes the results. I think every state has a similar program. That won't tell you about lawyers running for the first time for a judicial seat, but it would be a good guide on the quality of sitting judges who are up for re-election.
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 08:07:58 AM
Possibly, but I doubt it. She may be angling for another VP slot. Imagine Perry and Palin, or rather, Right and Righter. She clearly loves the limelight and she enjoys making lots of money, so she may just be a gadfly for a while before returning to her TV home. That's a good place for her.
I think Palin wants to be a king/queenmaker, not a candidate, and perhaps RNC Chair.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 13, 2011, 02:50:59 PM
As opposed to the geniuses that nearly ran the entire economy to the ground while the nation is being swept by unchecked mass immigration. Those are the people we ought to trust, right?
The geniuses who ran the economy into the ground were in the Cheney Administration. Remember the Crash of 2008? Hmmmm? And the Republicants in Congress have generally opposed every ameliorative measure Obama has proposed and will continue to do so. Trying to compromise with them is like trying to get your footing on a waterbed--as soon as you take a stand--any stand--the foundation rushes away.
As for immigration, three points--our immigration quotas are unrealistically low. The economy needs more immigrants than the quotas will allow to come in legally. These are the people who are going to help us resolve our Social Security funding problems if we give them half a chance, by increasing the number of people putting into the fund. But Republicants don't want to allow much of any immigration anymore unless they are Indians already writing for National Review, because they know most immigrants who become citizens vote Democratic. That's because we Democrats are not xenophobes. Thirdly, it is not true that immigration is unchecked. Obama deported more immigrants per year in his first two years than Bush ever did. The Border Patrol staffing levels have increased under the Obama Administration despite the fact that there are fewer people attempting to cross our southern border, thanks to the recession. It just isn't true that immigration is unchecked. That was much closer to the truth during the Cheney Administration.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 13, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I know very little about Perry. Why the negativity?
As Jim Hightower says, "Rick Perry is the guy who put the goober in gubernatorial." ::) ::)
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2011, 01:49:30 PM
The days of the liberal Republican -- they did exist! -- were long past even before I came of voting age, and the moderate Republicans disappeared in the last decade or so, so I'd never vote for any Republican. Obama is a huge disappointment in terms of both policy outcomes and political ability, and I don't expect him to improve in a second term, but the Republicans have gotten so insane that it's important to vote against them whenever possible.
I assume the general voting public won't go for another Texas governor so soon -- particularly one who even talks just like W -- but the voting public usually finds a way to confound and astonish me.
My assumption is that Romney will be the eventual nominee. No one likes him, but I think Republican voters will eventually fall into line around the establishment candidate.
I also think it's a safe assumption that the economy is not going to improve in the next 13 months and that Romney will have a very good chance of winning the general election. I predict that any winning Republican candidate will not have much if any coattails, though.
I agree completely with your first two paragraphs, Daverz, but Romeny the nominee? Not a chance. I predict it will be Perry. I also predict that Perry is just smart enough--though this is probably the outer limit of his intelligence--to understand that his first priority after accepting the nomination must be to distance himself from the virulent anti-Catholic bigotry of John Hagee. I predict he will signal this difference by choosing a Northern Catholic as his running mate, and I think the top candidate on his list will be Paul Ryan--ideological diversity is not Perry's thing, and I think Perry has at least a dim awareness of the fact that Santorum is just too far out.
Romney the nominee? I don't think so. The recent flap about his California house shows he is just tone deaf. I think the basic reason he is running is because his wife wants him to, just to get him out of the house so he won't drive her nuts. Huntsman is the sanest of the bunch, but his campaign is going nowhere. I predict, though, that he will stay in til the end, because I think he is really running for 2016, and is using this campaign to travel around the country, familiarize himself with different localities and their special problems, and build up a base of supporters, or potential supporters, for whom he is the second choice at the moment.
Quote from: Daverz on August 24, 2011, 03:49:07 PM
And when it comes time to vote, how does one find information about the judges? I often leave these blank, but if I find an endorsement on the state or local GOP website I can at least cross them off in the voter guide. But a Dem endorsement is no guarantee the judge isn't some corporate stooge on the make. Maybe I should call the candidates up and grill them myself. :D
A good rule of thumb is to vote against all the white Anglo male candidates. White men who are good lawyers can make lots more money in the private sector than as a legitimate judge. Ergo, the only reason for one to run for judge is if they are not very good lawyers or if they are crooks. Operation Greylord in Chicago sent 15 judges to jail, all of them white males. The only black person caught in the scandal was a bailiff.
Quote from: RebLem on August 27, 2011, 06:16:57 PM
A good rule of thumb is to vote against all the white Anglo male candidates. White men who are good lawyers can make lots more money in the private sector than as a legitimate judge. Ergo, the only reason for one to run for judge is if they are not very good lawyers or if they are crooks. Operation Greylord in Chicago sent 15 judges to jail, all of them white males. The only black person caught in the scandal was a bailiff.
That's not really true. A lot of attorneys try to get a judgeship because they see it as the next logical step, especially if their background is in criminal law (either prosecutor or defense attorney). Particularly so if they are politically connected. And a lot of lawyers find that there are other things besides making money which are important, and get tired of having to deal with clients. The cachet of being a judge is not to be dismissed lightly, either. The fact that those corrupt Chicago judges were all white males may be due to the nature of Chicago politics. Alcee Hastings was convicted of bribery, and while he's a male, he's definitely not white.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 27, 2011, 07:10:59 PM
That's not really true. A lot of attorneys try to get a judgeship because they see it as the next logical step, especially if their background is in criminal law (either prosecutor or defense attorney). Particularly so if they are politically connected. And a lot of lawyers find that there are other things besides making money which are important, and get tired of having to deal with clients. The cachet of being a judge is not to be dismissed lightly, either. The fact that those corrupt Chicago judges were all white males may be due to the nature of Chicago politics. Alcee Hastings was convicted of bribery, and while he's a male, he's definitely not white.
Blacks, Hispanics, and women have the most to gain from being judges. For many of them, even the very good ones, a judgeship is a step up in terms of income because of rank discrimination in the legal profession and the businesses that retain law firms. Blacks especially.
Why Blacks especially? First, because discrimination against them is more intense than for Hispanics and white women. And secondly, as if that weren't enough, black attorneys in private practice get enormous pressure from within their own community to do prodigious amounts of pro bono work, and if one demurs on the ground that one needs
some time to earn a living, one is accused of having forgotten where he came from. A judgeship is an escape from all that, Alcee Hastings notwithstanding.
Quote from: RebLem on August 27, 2011, 08:21:59 PM
Blacks, Hispanics, and women have the most to gain from being judges. For many of them, even the very good ones, a judgeship is a step up in terms of income because of rank discrimination in the legal profession and the businesses that retain law firms. Blacks especially.
Why Blacks especially? First, because discrimination against them is more intense than for Hispanics and white women. And secondly, as if that weren't enough, black attorneys in private practice get enormous pressure from within their own community to do prodigious amounts of pro bono work, and if one demurs on the ground that one needs some time to earn a living, one is accused of having forgotten where he came from. A judgeship is an escape from all that, Alcee Hastings notwithstanding.
I can only conclude from this that your knowledge of how the legal profession operates is not very great.
Quote from: RebLem on August 27, 2011, 12:02:33 AM
As for immigration, three points--our immigration quotas are unrealistically low. The economy needs more immigrants than the quotas will allow to come in legally.
You do realize, I hope, that official unemployment in the USA is approx. 10%, and unofficial un- and under-employment is a lot higher than that. How did you conclude that the economy needs more immigrants? Shouldn't we concentrate on putting the people we have to work?
QuoteBut Republicants don't want to allow much of any immigration anymore unless they are Indians already writing for National Review, because they know most immigrants who become citizens vote Democratic.
Republicans, a lot of them anyway, love immigration, particularly of the illegal kind, because it gives them a dirt-cheap compliant workforce lacking in any legal protections. It also gives them access to highly-skilled legal labor which works for peanuts, via the H1B1 program, among others. I'm betting there are a lot more Indians working for tech companies than writing for National Review.
QuoteThirdly, it is not true that immigration is unchecked. Obama deported more immigrants per year in his first two years than Bush ever did. The Border Patrol staffing levels have increased under the Obama Administration despite the fact that there are fewer people attempting to cross our southern border, thanks to the recession. It just isn't true that immigration is unchecked. That was much closer to the truth during the Cheney Administration.
This actually contradicts your above statement that Republicans are against immigration.
Quote from: Velimir on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
You do realize, I hope, that official unemployment in the USA is approx. 10%, and unofficial un- and under-employment is a lot higher than that. How did you conclude that the economy needs more immigrants? Shouldn't we concentrate on putting the people we have to work?
But immigrants don't really fill the same jobs as displaced Americans; it's not, for instance, that Mexicans are coming across the border and taking jobs at Ford and Chrysler plants. I don't really think that immigration could be called a cause of job loss, although more and more middle-aged people are taking hourly minimum-wage jobs. Unemployment is worst among teenagers, because the traditional "teenage" jobs (say, store clerk) are being filled by women in their 40s who were let go from administrative or other work.
Quote from: Brian on August 29, 2011, 05:37:21 AMBut immigrants don't really fill the same jobs as displaced Americans
(Shhh, don't tell anyone. That will reduce the quantity and quality of immigration "debate".)
Quote from: Ruth MarcusPerry's 2010 Tea Party-steeped manifesto, Fed Up!, makes George Bush look like George McGovern. Perry has said he wasn't planning to run for president when he wrote the book, and it shows . . . .
RTWT here.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 31, 2011, 04:57:45 AM
RTWT here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perry-by-the-book/2011/08/30/gIQAJJsbqJ_story.html?hpid=z2)
I predict this guy will be the next president and bring this country to the point of no return, effectively wiping out the middle class.
I voted against him at every possible opportunity. Now y'all have your chance. I hope it pays off more than my efforts did. This guy is a freakin' lunatic, and if y'all vote to give him power, you will most likely regret it. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on August 31, 2011, 06:03:43 AM
I voted against him at every possible opportunity. Now y'all have your chance. I hope it pays off more than my efforts did. This guy is a freakin' lunatic, and if y'all vote to give him power, you will most likely regret it. :-\
8)
Democrats' Devil's advocate sez: It'll be a great advantage to Obama, if Perry is the GOP nominee.
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on August 31, 2011, 06:03:43 AM
This guy is a freakin' lunatic :-\
8)
Well, that's
a theory that's out there...
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 31, 2011, 06:05:04 AMDemocrats' Devil's advocate sez: It'll be a great advantage to Obama, if Perry is the GOP nominee.
I'd agree more if you said Bachmann or Palin. Perry is, by all accounts, a deft politician and expert campaigner. He's talking tough and appealing to the right now, but comparatively few people are paying attention. If it becomes clear he will win the nomination, he will start moving toward the center a bit to appeal to a wider base. It's rather predictable. Don't rule him out because he is too conservative or whatever. Reagan was too conservative to get elected, as well as too old, not too bright, etc.
Personally, I'm thinking it would be best if Obama won, the Republicans at least held the House, and then 2016 would be a wide open field for both parties, just like '08. Talk about fun.
Sound analysis, Todd.
Quote from: Todd on August 31, 2011, 06:49:24 AM
Personally, I'm thinking it would be best if Obama won, the Republicans at least held the House, and then 2016 would be a wide open field for both parties, just like '08. Talk about fun.
So, that would be how many years lost doing partisan games?
There you go, taking the long view for the benefit of the nation. You'd never make a politician, Herman ; )
Quote from: Herman on August 31, 2011, 10:31:41 AMSo, that would be how many years lost doing partisan games?
240 years straight in 2016.
Started with those damnable Whigs, didn't it? . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 31, 2011, 11:34:06 AMStarted with those damnable Whigs, didn't it? . . .
Nah, they operated in the Jacksonian era. You gotta go back to Hamilton and Jefferson.
Ron Paul just keeps saying smart stuff. I know the Vermont governor called him an idiot, but,... oh, I can see I'm not going to be able to say anything more...
I JUST HAPPENED to hear both Rush and Hannity (just have talk radio on all the time, no affil here) get per-fluxomed by callers raving about Paul. Both hate Paul, so, it was nice to see them squirming trying to politely tell the little old ladies that they just had a difference of opinion of things with Paul.
I'd say Paul is the only one who doesn't want to attack Iran and Syria.
I think Paul would decimated Obama in a one on one.
These are just things that I, the perfect innocent bystander, see, and report, and opine. ;D
Quote from: snyprrr on August 31, 2011, 07:36:47 PM
Ron Paul just keeps saying smart stuff.
That's one of the most curious remarks about the campaign I've heard yet.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 31, 2011, 07:36:47 PMI'd say Paul is the only one who doesn't want to attack Iran and Syria.
I must have missed the calls for attacking Syria. Are they widespread?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 01, 2011, 03:59:08 AM
That's one of the most curious remarks about the campaign I've heard yet.
Think of it this way: most Republican politicians trot out conservative/libertarian talking points in order to keep their voters in line, and apply the principles only when it suits them. Paul actually applies those principles and sticks to them. Dislike of the Federal Reserve, for instance--if you're for a much smaller government than we have now, then a central bank able to manipulate the money supply and other economic matters, even to a limited degree, is highly suspect.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 01, 2011, 07:49:05 AM
Think of it this way: most Republican politicians trot out conservative/libertarian talking points in order to keep their voters in line, and apply the principles only when it suits them. Paul actually applies those principles and sticks to them. Dislike of the Federal Reserve, for instance--if you're for a much smaller government than we have now, then a central bank able to manipulate the money supply and other economic matters, even to a limited degree, is highly suspect.
Aye, but that's a different matter to concluding that the stuff wot he has to say is smart.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 01, 2011, 09:43:56 AM
Aye, but that's a different matter to concluding that the stuff wot he has to say is smart.
ok, you're right. The smart thing to say (to get elected), or do, is what Clinton and Bush did: pander to the base, and then betray them. I'd believe there are more Democratic politicians who secretly back Paul, than Republicans.
On the Fox show 'The Five', Bob Beckel, the token liberal ::), was going through the GOP candidates and completely did not even say Paul's name, and the rest of them (the libs pretending to be consrvs) continued the silence, even though he (Paul) apparently won their (fox's) poll.
My new theory is that, at the last moment, Obama will not run, and give the nomination to Hillary. This theory is running into lots of problems though.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 01, 2011, 06:19:21 PM
ok, you're right. The smart thing to say (to get elected), or do, is what Clinton and Bush did: pander to the base, and then betray them.
Droll. You cannot really think that disbanding the Fed is "smart." What fills the void? [An intelligent answer, please.]
GK Chesterton: Don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 02, 2011, 04:00:45 AMWhat fills the void?
Well, JP Morgan is still around. Alas, Mr Dimon doesn't have the same sway Mr Morgan did.
Well, and for those who really think the private sector would do just fine on its own without governmental oversight, two words: Merrill Lynch
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 02, 2011, 04:00:45 AM
Droll. You cannot really think that disbanding the Fed is "smart." What fills the void? [An intelligent answer, please.]
GK Chesterton: Don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.
Of course 'they''ve got it to the point where you can't extract the 'evil' without killing the 'host', meaning, how do you do the right thing (kill the private central bank) without causing the bankers to...
you know, Karl, my SMART answer is to let the old people DIE!!! Yea, let all this Medicare and SS go!!! Let the bank GO!!! Let HEARTY, FRONTIER DRIVEN real men and women survive this apocalypse like so many post-apocalypse films do.
I'm not running for Liar-in-Chief, so, let me lay it down. A Nanny State is not in the US Constitustion. Except for the fact that Perry is so creepy and obviously a shill for oil and israel, all the stuff... forget him, Paul says the same stuff...
Look, OLD PEOPLE NEED TO START DYING like they USED to. Right now they are ALL artificially being propped up and used as a 'bloc' for no other reason than to get liberal social policies enacted.
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
You all really think that the STATUS QUO can go on and on and on??? AT SOME POINT the camel's back will break, and all the politician's promises will be shown for what they are: WORDS words, and only hot air.
Let granny die so her great grand children will live.
My own mother has taken the 'fuck em' attitude: I'm old and I just want to live out my days in peace, and I could care less about feeling guilty about selling my legacy into slavery to the chinese, and dying in endless wars for israel.
AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!
FED = out
IRS = out
New Deal = out
Go clone Andrew Jackson, then maybe I'll vote. >:D
oh yea, and I HAVE sucked the teat of Unemployment Benefits many many times. Gladly I would have forgone this safety net shit for a more hearty constitution (in me).
OF COURSE you want a 'smart' answer, because there is no nice way of saying that the only way to get us out of this mess is to totally fuck with the status quo of largesse driven public policy. Yes, you're gonna have to 'let' some old people die,... and no politician is going to ask that of their selfish constituants.
Maybe THAT's the problem: the people of the US. Maybe WE SUCK as a people?????? Why can't we REFUSE government assistance?
Oh, that's right, the government ENCOURAGED all this, to the point we are at now. Everybody's a victim.
EVERYBODY'S A VICTIM!!
Anyhow, you asked about the Fed. Have you seen the film 'Creature from Jekyll Island' about what happened in 1913? Hey, it's ONLY been 100 years. Everybody acts like ANY tradition is worth saving.
Why do you want foreign, private, bankers running our fiscals? Why why why???? Are they that trustworthy? Have they shown themselves capable of stopping ANYTHING???
Isn't it obvious that everything is cronyism?
The government should be made of America is fucked. We have reached polarization, and when the riots hit HERE, it looks like it's going to be muuuuuch worse than what we've already seen.
Imagine... all those people on pyschotropics when they can't get their meds. Imagine, just imagine.
And the answer to the question in your head, is, No!!! ;)
Yea,... a 'smart' answer on getting rid of the Fed? Just tell the people what they want to hear, and, as soon as you're elected, do whatever you please (Clinton & Bush). Obama is showing that he didn't get that memo.
The government is just TOO BIG, Karl,... no??? Do I need someone to tell me when I can wipe my butt, too? Do I really need someone to tell me what to eat? how to drive?
IF I CAN PUT UP A LEMONADE STAND??(look this one up,... it's been happening a lot lately)
Maybe I WANT raw milk. No one's gonna tell me I can't. Fuckers. >:D
All you people who wan What's that quote (from Franklin?):
Those who would trade 'rights' for 'security' deserve neither?
The next president (and it probably won't be Paul) will no doubt try to fuck us worse than all the rest combined. I say either Hillary or Perry/Cheney/Bolton/Romney.
No, my simple answer is to let it all fall. Had we let it fall in 2008, we wouldn't be so concerned about letting it fall in 2011 (and next year, and after that, and...). Had we let nature happen in 2008, maybe SOME of us would still be around to pick up the pieces and start over (unless of course we'd be speaking chinese?).
SMART ANSWER: LEARN CHINESE!!!!!!!! ;)
See what you did Karl.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 02, 2011, 04:00:45 AM
. . . [An intelligent answer, please.]
Suppose I ought to have asked for an intelligible answer, as well.]
Quote from: Velimir on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AMRepublicans, a lot of them anyway, love immigration, particularly of the illegal kind, because it gives them a dirt-cheap compliant workforce lacking in any legal protections. It also gives them access to highly-skilled legal labor which works for peanuts, via the H1B1 program, among others. I'm betting there are a lot more Indians working for tech companies than writing for National Review.
Indeed. Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats from any white nationalist point of view. Damn, did i mention the "w" word? My bad.
Is it just me, or does it seem like Americans talk about 'the next election' basically the day after the previous election? :D All the 'hype' for the 'next election' seems to start like at least 3 years in advance.
Is this commonplace in some other countries?
The circus is always in town.
If you wanted high-flying acrobats, tightrope walkers, and lion tamers, you may be disappointed. These days it features almost nothing but clowns.
Years ago we actually had a in-a-strange-way-post-modern-yet-not-intellectual comedian elected to parliament here, promising "more tail wind on every bicycle path", "generally better weather", "shorter queues in supermarkets", "nutella in soldier´s field rations" (this was actually accomplished) etc.
He did become somewhat more serious though, realizing that his vote meant something, and was also modest enough not to seek re-election.
Quote from: DieNacht on September 02, 2011, 11:52:11 AM
"nutella in soldier´s field rations" (this was actually accomplished)
Nice.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 02, 2011, 07:18:51 AM
Well, and for those who really think the private sector would do just fine on its own without governmental oversight, two words: Merrill Lynch
Consider how much damaged Goldman Sachs et al did because they got Freddie Mac et al to buy their mortgages, and otherwise how much the various government agencies were involved in greenlighting all that mess.
Had there been no Freddie Mac buying all the mortgages in sight (without apparently bothing to check on their validity or risk), perhaps Goldman Sachs might have gone down, or Bank of America, or one or two major institutions--but it would have never developed to the point it did, and threaten to bring down the whole complex of American finance.
We libertarians don't believe that the free market will always deliver a good result--or even deliver a good result most of the time. What we believe is that government interference in the market will always end up delivering a worse result than the free market would on its own--by inappropriate regulation, by existing companies bringing the regulatory and legislative process under their control so as to hinder new competition and to become rent seeking (ie, get tax money to end up being part of their revenue stream no matter what the merits might be). To say we would be better off without the Fed is not the same thing as saying we would be at an optimal state without the Fed. It's being relative to the mess we're in now.
And it has to be mentioned that unlike Snyperr, I'm not at all eager to see Granny die off.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 12:21:52 PM
And it has to be mentioned that unlike Snyprr, I'm not at all eager to see Granny die off.
Especially since I am now married to Granny.... :-\
But in any case, I am in agreement with more of your post than most others. I would be a Libertarian myself if I identified with anyone at all. We Haydnists are anarchosyndicalist more than anything else.... :)
8)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 02, 2011, 11:11:59 AM
Indeed. Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats from any white nationalist point of view. Damn, did i mention the "w" word? My bad.
haha! :D
Quote from: DieNacht on September 02, 2011, 11:52:11 AM
and was also modest enough not to seek re-election.
weeping for joy :'(
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 12:21:52 PM
And it has to be mentioned that unlike Snyperr, I'm not at all eager to see Granny die off.
It was simply 'A Modest Proposal'. :D
Dying off is one thing, keeping auntie vege around is another. Look, maybe this is a topic that I can't discuss without a requisite dose of black humor. What I meant was that King Pharma+Government = bad news.
When my time comes,... my time will come. Just like it did throughout history.They'll have to arrest me before I go to the death-spital (hospital). How many infections start at the hospital? Anyhow,... take a pill, take a pill.
How bout that 'Dream Act', huh? Apparently, I live in illegals heaven (not CA).
Ay, viene la migra!!
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 12:21:52 PM
What we believe is that government interference in the market will always end up delivering a worse result than the free market would on its own
History does not support such an idea. For instance, before the advent of universal public education, there was a colossal market failure in that arena. The only way to extend the benefits of education to the entire population (well, almost) was to rely on government. In the US, despite the high demand for railroads, the national system that was created in the 19th could not have been established without direct intervention by and support of the government.
In the financial realm, panics have been common for centuries, and one of the goals of government policy starting the Progressive Era and continuing on for decades was to limit the effect of panics. The Fed, while imperfect, has played a significant part in that, especially in the post-war era. (Prior to that it's record was more mixed, obviously, as it helped exacerbate the Great Depression. Thank goodness Ben Bernanke knows his history and is not repeating the same mistakes.) Other legislation did as well. One of the great legislative failures in the past 20 years was the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Allowing investment banks to fail is one thing. Who cares? But when commercial banks branch into areas traditionally dominated by investment banks, and when investment banks move into commercial banking, systemic risks increase significantly. That should not be allowed to occur, especially when the risks are so well known. There is too much volatility to simply let private firms – that is, the market – act as freely as they want. Splitting operations reduces systemic risk while still allowing the market to work just splendidly on the institutional side. Barring that, more stringent capital requirements are needed. That means more government.
I know it's now fashionable for some to say that Fannie and Freddie caused the problem, or even that government mandates to lend to higher risk borrowers pushed under the auspices of the Community Reinvestment Act helped create the crisis – or better yet, created the crisis by themselves – but the evidence just doesn't support such claims. True Fannie and Freddie were poorly run and contributed mightily to the problem, but huge volumes of loans never were purchased by Fannie and Freddie. The problem would have been more manageable without the GSEs in the mix, but there was still a big problem. Anyone with a memory longer than a a few years would remember that the late 90s offered a first taste of this problem – with non-GSE loans – when bankers were issuing 80/20 piggybacks and 125 LTV loans like crazy. Fortunately, they died off quickly – the latter product had one of the highest first payment default rates ever seen – and they rarely if ever met GSE standards, and securitization markets were not as deep or sophisticated/complex, so the problem was more contained. "Relaxed" (to put it mildly) underwriting standards in the last decade allowed more money to enter the market, but the products were constructed to pass GSE and securitization muster, eg, Option ARMs, one of the worst financial products ever created, and new variants of the 80/20 jobs. But even they by themselves did not cause the problem. As to the idea that government mandated lending caused the problem, this argument was just this week weakened substantially by a Fed study showing that to not quite be the case. Of course, people who think the Fed is part of the problem will say things along the lines that the study is political, etc, but the onus is on such critics to offer the empirical evidence to the contrary.
Of course, another problem with the libertarian or market fundamentalist creed that decries government involvement is that it ignores certain realities of the financial markets, namely that some markets could not even exist with the federal government, and in particular the securities it issues. What would act as collateral for trillions in financial transactions if not Treasuries? Perhaps some other sovereign debt. Which? Corporate debt? Local government debt? Wait, gold! The government must be involved in the financial markets just so that they function properly. And guess what, when that happens, the government gets a say so in how things work. Well, because of that and democracy, imperfect as it is. Reverting to a false past or an idyll of no regulation would make things worse.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 12:21:52 PM
Consider how much damaged Goldman Sachs et al did because they got Freddie Mac et al to buy their mortgages, and otherwise how much the various government agencies were involved in greenlighting all that mess.
Had there been no Freddie Mac buying all the mortgages in sight (without apparently bothing to check on their validity or risk), perhaps Goldman Sachs might have gone down, or Bank of America, or one or two major institutions--but it would have never developed to the point it did, and threaten to bring down the whole complex of American finance.
We libertarians don't believe that the free market will always deliver a good result--or even deliver a good result most of the time. What we believe is that government interference in the market will always end up delivering a worse result than the free market would on its own--by inappropriate regulation, by existing companies bringing the regulatory and legislative process under their control so as to hinder new competition and to become rent seeking (ie, get tax money to end up being part of their revenue stream no matter what the merits might be). To say we would be better off without the Fed is not the same thing as saying we would be at an optimal state without the Fed. It's being relative to the mess we're in now.
And it has to be mentioned that unlike Snyperr, I'm not at all eager to see Granny die off.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The statists tend to compare their fantasies of how good things can be in a perfect world against the worst real-world examples of the past. The entire mortgage meltdown and ensuing recession would never have happened without massive government interference in mortgage banking during the '90s. Fannie, Freddie, the CRA, repealing Glass-Steagal, and deregulation of derivatives, all combined with predictable stupidity and greed (granted, greed is a subset of stupidity) to create a catastophe that never would have happened without government interference with traditional prudent lending practices.
Quote from: Todd on September 02, 2011, 02:52:26 PM
History does not support such an idea. For instance, before the advent of universal public education, there was a colossal market failure in that arena. The only way to extend the benefits of education to the entire population (well, almost) was to rely on government. In the US, despite the high demand for railroads, the national system that was created in the 19th could not have been established without direct intervention by and support of the government.
Some of your argument is a good example of "begging the question" or "assuming your conclusion".
For instance, I could argue that public education has been a colossal market failure. When a substantial proportion of the population doesn't even attain the level of basic literacy, and colleges are forced to teach elementary grammar to incoming freshmen, the idea that public education has been a significant achievement tends to pall. And when you add in all those people who are literate but don't understand why evolution is accepted science....
As for the US railroad system, are you aware that is one of the best examples of crony capitalism and government corruption by business in history. Supposedly only one railroad in the country was built without government help. (Rand's depiction of the founder of Taggart Railroads building his empire totally on his own is one of the most fantastic and reality free elements in Atlas Shrugged.) It's actually a textbood example of how government can screw up a market because of corruption and politics.
Quote
In the financial realm, panics have been common for centuries, and one of the goals of government policy starting the Progressive Era and continuing on for decades was to limit the effect of panics. The Fed, while imperfect, has played a significant part in that, especially in the post-war era. (Prior to that it's record was more mixed, obviously, as it helped exacerbate the Great Depression. Thank goodness Ben Bernanke knows his history and is not repeating the same mistakes.) Other legislation did as well. One of the great legislative failures in the past 20 years was the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Allowing investment banks to fail is one thing. Who cares? But when commercial banks branch into areas traditionally dominated by investment banks, and when investment banks move into commercial banking, systemic risks increase significantly. That should not be allowed to occur, especially when the risks are so well known. There is too much volatility to simply let private firms – that is, the market – act as freely as they want. Splitting operations reduces systemic risk while still allowing the market to work just splendidly on the institutional side. Barring that, more stringent capital requirements are needed. That means more government.
Not necessarily. Depositors and investors demanding accountability from the management can supply everything regulation does. You might accuse me of fantasizing here, given how depositors and investors in general seem to do no such thing at present. You might be right, but there's no real way of telling how much of that apathy is simply willingness to rely on governmental oversight, and therefore how much apathy there would be in lieu of that oversight.
And don't forget that in the libertarian model, government legitimately intervenes to detect or avoid fraud, and that allows a good deal of oversight and regulation right there.
Quote
I know it's now fashionable for some to say that Fannie and Freddie caused the problem, or even that government mandates to lend to higher risk borrowers pushed under the auspices of the Community Reinvestment Act helped create the crisis – or better yet, created the crisis by themselves – but the evidence just doesn't support such claims. True Fannie and Freddie were poorly run and contributed mightily to the problem, but huge volumes of loans never were purchased by Fannie and Freddie. The problem would have been more manageable without the GSEs in the mix, but there was still a big problem. Anyone with a memory longer than a a few years would remember that the late 90s offered a first taste of this problem – with non-GSE loans – when bankers were issuing 80/20 piggybacks and 125 LTV loans like crazy. Fortunately, they died off quickly – the latter product had one of the highest first payment default rates ever seen – and they rarely if ever met GSE standards, and securitization markets were not as deep or sophisticated/complex, so the problem was more contained. "Relaxed" (to put it mildly) underwriting standards in the last decade allowed more money to enter the market, but the products were constructed to pass GSE and securitization muster, eg, Option ARMs, one of the worst financial products ever created, and new variants of the 80/20 jobs. But even they by themselves did not cause the problem. As to the idea that government mandated lending caused the problem, this argument was just this week weakened substantially by a Fed study showing that to not quite be the case. Of course, people who think the Fed is part of the problem will say things along the lines that the study is political, etc, but the onus is on such critics to offer the empirical evidence to the contrary.
to which I would say, the basic problem was that Freddie and Fannie effectively guaranteed almost any mortgage proffered them, allowing the bad loans to turn into financial kudzu. (I think the CRA had some impact, but not nearly as much as the conservative side claims.)
Quote
Of course, another problem with the libertarian or market fundamentalist creed that decries government involvement is that it ignores certain realities of the financial markets, namely that some markets could not even exist with the federal government, and in particular the securities it issues. What would act as collateral for trillions in financial transactions if not Treasuries? Perhaps some other sovereign debt. Which? Corporate debt? Local government debt? Wait, gold! The government must be involved in the financial markets just so that they function properly. And guess what, when that happens, the government gets a say so in how things work. Well, because of that and democracy, imperfect as it is. Reverting to a false past or an idyll of no regulation would make things worse.
This last paragraph is where you seriously fall victim to question begging. You're assuming those financial transactions would be necessary. They might not be. However, just to be clear, I'm not saying we should have no government and no government debt. So sovereign debt would exist in my perfect universe.
Personally, I'm not very much against the Fed. I know it has an important, possibly irreplaceable, position in the financial world. I'm against the whole system of crony capitalism and government for the lobbyists and for those who can get their agents elected to office so they can grab their share of the public revenues which seems to currently characterize American government at almost all levels. But there is a rational basis for the anti-Federal Reserver argument, and Ron Paul is not a loony for making that argument. It's simply that most Americans don't agree with his premises--or rather, they agree with some of his conclusions without bothering to investigate his premises.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 02, 2011, 11:19:51 AM
Is it just me, or does it seem like Americans talk about 'the next election' basically the day after the previous election? :D All the 'hype' for the 'next election' seems to start like at least 3 years in advance.
Only the shortsighted ones. Some are already planning for the election
after the "next" one.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 02, 2011, 04:27:04 PM
The entire mortgage meltdown and ensuing recession would never have happened without massive government interference in mortgage banking during the '90s. Fannie, Freddie, the CRA, repealing Glass-Steagal, and deregulation of derivatives, all combined with predictable stupidity and greed (granted, greed is a subset of stupidity) to create a catastophe that never would have happened without government interference with traditional prudent lending practices.
If someone grows up to be a serial killer, we might take into account the behaviour of his parents, but ultimately the one who pulls the trigger is responsible - in this case, incompetent and corrupt companies who tried to build their fortunes on what was obviously a Ponzi scheme.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 05:25:38 PMFor instance, I could argue that public education has been a colossal market failure.
You cannot argue that because the fact that literacy exists at the level it does today is because of government action. Education is imperfect, to be sure, but it is less imperfect than it was before widespread government involvement.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 05:25:38 PMAs for the US railroad system, are you aware that is one of the best examples of crony capitalism and government corruption by business in history.
Yes, I am aware of the history of the railroads, and the role that the government played in their creation. The point is that without government involvement, the high demand for railroads and the economic benefits they brought would have never occurred.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 05:25:38 PMDepositors and investors demanding accountability from the management can supply everything regulation does.
Absolutely false. Most depositors lack basic financial understanding, let alone understanding of complex concepts like reserves, lending, risk management, etc. What one gets if one relies on depositors are rashes of bank runs. History is unambiguously clear that government oversight is needed here.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 05:25:38 PMthe basic problem was that Freddie and Fannie effectively guaranteed almost any mortgage proffered them, allowing the bad loans to turn into financial kudzu. (I think the CRA had some impact, but not nearly as much as the conservative side claims.)
False. Fannie and Freddie routinely rejected large amounts of assets that would not meet even their relaxed standards. The problem was and is bigger than Fannie and Freddie.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 02, 2011, 05:25:38 PMYou're assuming those financial transactions would be necessary.
Your statement clearly implies that you do not know what transactions I am referring to. Treasuries are used as collateral for trillions of dollars worth of transactions that companies voluntarily engage in daily to make money and ensure liquidity (repos, swaps, etc), as well as to meet regulatory requirements. I assume nothing; I look at how the system operates. Companies must, if they are to meet their fiduciary duty to investors, deploy capital in as efficient and profitable a manner as possible, so in that sense, the transactions are, in fact, necessary.
One of the biggest problems of the so-called "libertarian" viewpoint is that they ignore reality in favor of the notion that there are always alternatives readily available. There are not. Let me ask you, what types of alternatives are there? And would the increased transaction costs, illiquidity in the market, and opacity of financial transactions make the market more stable and efficient? The obvious answer is no, because such set ups have already been tried.
Old news to Texans, I assume, and to others who may have followed Rick Perry's career, but Ruger sells a gun inspired by the governor. (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/gun-maker-celebrates-governors-crack-shot-706290.html) Neato.
Good news or bad news for Ms Bachmann I wonder. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/bachmann-campaign-chief-rollins-and-his-deputy-leave-her-white-house-campaign/2011/09/05/gIQAtOLO5J_story.html)
Quote from: Eugene RobinsonThe lowest point of the evening — and perhaps of the political season — came when moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question about a young man who elects not to purchase health insurance. The man has a medical crisis, goes into a coma and needs expensive care. "Who pays?" Blitzer asked.
"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul answered. "This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody. . . ."
RTWT here.
I liked Ms Bachmann's recent assertion that the HPV vaccine caused someone, somewhere to become mentally impaired. She's a bigger nut than I thought, which is saying quite a bit.
In response to karl: I remember that in the debate. I don't think that Ron Paul is callous. He is saying that it is the responsibility of the community and not the government to pay for these people. He also said that no hospital would turn away someone just because they couldn't pay.
The question was misleading, meant to portray him as a cold, heartless bastard. Honestly it was pretty stupid.
Quote from: DavidW on September 16, 2011, 09:41:41 AM
In response to karl: I remember that in the debate. I don't think that Ron Paul is callous. He is saying that it is the responsibility of the community and not the government to pay for these people. He also said that no hospital would turn away someone just because they couldn't pay.
Thanks, Davey.
What hurt Ron Paul the most was his statements about 9/11. He was trying to say that the idea that the Muslim community has not declared jihad against us and then proceeded to attempt to quote bin Laden as to the reasons the WTC was bombed. But the jeers were so loud that nobody was paying attention, the soundbite will be taken out of context (if it's not already, I cancelled cable) and he should be out of the race soon... by his strongest supporters, the Tea Party.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2011, 09:14:56 AM
RTWT here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-are-the-compassionate-conservatives/2011/09/15/gIQA83EfVK_story.html?hpid=z3).
Apparently the
real low point of the evening was Wolf Blitzer's question. My mom says that after "...or do you let him stay in the coma?" people in the audience cheered.
Quote from: Brian on September 16, 2011, 10:02:36 AM
Apparently the real low point of the evening was Wolf Blitzer's question. My mom says that after "...or do you let him stay in the coma?" people in the audience cheered.
Yes, it's the audience reaction that was despicable. Paul sort of criticized the audience in his answer, which was essentially "the answer to that is charity, not government". Apparently Paul has a lot more charity than the audience did.
And Rick Perry's spokesman issued something the next morning that essentially said Perry was taken aback by the audience reaction and hoped people would remember that the GOP claims to the "pro-life" party. Of course, Perry seems to forget that part about pro-life when presiding over a death penalty machine that has (if my math is right) executed someone an average of once every two weeks for the entire term he's been governor of Texas.
Quote from: Brian on September 16, 2011, 10:02:36 AM
Apparently the real low point of the evening was Wolf Blitzer's question. My mom says that after "...or do you let him stay in the coma?" people in the audience cheered.
Excepting that 9/11 question I swear the audience wildly cheered for ANYTHING that came out of the mouths of Ron Paul and Rick Perry! :D
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 16, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
And Rick Perry's spokesman issued something the next morning that essentially said Perry was taken aback by the audience reaction and hoped people would remember that the GOP claims to the "pro-life" party. Of course, Perry seems to forget that part about pro-life when presiding over a death penalty machine that has (if my math is right) executed someone an average of once every two weeks for the entire term he's been governor of Texas.
This is a confusing thing about a lot of the US right - the government should have minimal impact on the private affairs of the individual, but it should be allowed to execute them ;)
Sure wish the Fed would execute la Palin . . . .
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on September 16, 2011, 11:03:12 AM
This is a confusing thing about a lot of the US right - the government should have minimal impact on the private affairs of the individual wealthy conservative white men, but it should be allowed to execute them ;)
Fixed that for you. ;D
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on September 16, 2011, 11:03:12 AM
This is a confusing thing about a lot of the US right - the government should have minimal impact on the private affairs of the individual, but it should be allowed to execute them ;)
That's because the US right is rather confused :)
Best way to explain it is that there are really four components to the Right here in the US
--social conservatives, who don't like abortion and gay marriage and do like the death penalty, and are often what's called the Religious Right
--laissez faire economicists, who are principally interested in low taxes and low regulation, on the principle that government interference is generally bad for the economy overall
--foreign policy/military hawks, who think the US should be very strong militarily and dominate other countries for the sake of US interests
Very often, but not always, these three groups are the same, or at least large numbers of one group are also members of the other two. All of them are comfortable with government interfering in areas that are not economic related.
Component four is the libertarian wing, which believes that government interference is, generally, bad no matter what the subject. Thus, we (I'm one of them) generally are against not only the death penalty but much of the social conservative agenda, and against the agenda of the hawks as well. The only group with which they fit comfortably is the laissez faire group, but their concerns are wider and their application of the principle is more consistent. We are the weakest group in the organized Right, and a lot of us, like myself, are not part of the Republican Party. As is sometimes said, we are so far to the right of the Right that we sometimes seem part of the Left, especially in foreign policy, military and social issues.
Because social conservatism and laissez faire economics tend to favor those who are already economically privileged--as Daverz observes, wealthy white men being a large, if not overwhelming, percentage of that group--its programs seem to favor those who are now the "Haves", and often the "Haves" are attracted to it because of that fact--but most of those who are part of the Right don't think in those terms. They are just defending what they see are traditional values and the status quo.
Quote from: Todd on September 16, 2011, 09:36:41 AM
I liked Ms Bachmann's recent assertion that the HPV vaccine caused someone, somewhere to become mentally impaired. She's a bigger nut than I thought, which is saying quite a bit.
A friend just pointed out that she missed a trick: HPV is merely HIV with a letter changed. Science can't beat common sense observations such as this.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on September 17, 2011, 11:38:18 AM
A friend just pointed out that she missed a trick: HPV is merely HIV with a letter changed. Science can't beat common sense observations such as this.
I thought the real objection might be that without the threat of a horrible protracted death from cervical cancer (not to mention the bankrupting medical bills), girls will of course immediately start having consequence-free hot monkey sex. But on second thought, I think they really object to anything that would keep bad girls from getting the comeuppance they deserve. In other words, good old-fashioned spite, the raison d'etre of the modern Republican Party.
Sorry not to join in with the happy hate-fest here, for I see the Republicans in general as less malicious, hypocritical, corrupt, and damaging than their rivals, the Democrats. But I do think the Republicans have been pretty stupid to let the media goad them into such premature jockeying for their party's nomination. By the time the election rolls around more than a year from now, the voters will probably be every bit as sick to death of the GOP candidate as they are of Obama.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 18, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
I see the Republicans in general as less malicious, hypocritical, corrupt, and damaging than their rivals, the Democrats.
They may be just as bad, but from an outsider perspective the Democrat party appears less comedic in their badness - they don't seem able to match the Republicans for the top few of that parties really weird figures.
Quote from: DavidW on September 16, 2011, 09:41:41 AM
In response to karl: I remember that in the debate. I don't think that Ron Paul is callous. He is saying that it is the responsibility of the community and not the government to pay for these people.
... Of the people, for the people?
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 18, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Sorry not to join in with the happy hate-fest here, for I see the Republicans in general as less malicious, hypocritical, corrupt, and damaging than their rivals, the Democrats.
It seems like what you are saying is that Republicans are more virtuous individuals than Democrats based on some personal definition of virtue, and that it's these personally defined virtues that matter most.
But malicious? Really? I doubt you can come up with anything more than someone getting their fee-fees hurt.
Charges of hypocrisy tend to be of the rather lame variety of "X proposes collective action but does not act unilaterally", or "X advocates for the poor but does not live like a monk." Republicans are much more in to legislating how people should live their private lives, so are naturally much more prone to charges of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not terribly important to policy outcomes, so I don't care if you want to pretend that Democrats are more hypocritical than Republicans.
Our current political system is corrupt at its core, but Republicans often tend to lead here for ideological reasons, particularly at creating the environment for corruption to thrive by weakening the institutions that combat it. Individual corruption is bad, but policy outcomes are far more important in determining the overall level of corruption in our political system.
The Republicans certainly lead on damage to the country. More damage to our economy, to public health, to our environment, to our standing in the world, to our military... Did you just wake up from a long nap that started in 2001?
Scary summary of former GOP staffer Mike Lofgren's recent piece:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/05/congressional-staffer-mike-lofgren-turns-on-his-fellow-republicans.html?obref=obinsite
* Recent debt ceiling and FAA reauthorization crises were political terrorism.
* Sabotaging of govt processes a calculated ploy to increase standing as anti-government party.
* GOP (still) only care about rich.
Quote from: Daverz on September 18, 2011, 06:48:32 PMOur current political system is corrupt at its core
(http://www.autonerdz.com/yabbfiles/avatars/UserAvatars/Mr._Bill.jpg)
This is the kind of toxic rhetoric that is the problem and not the solution. I don't think that either party are malicious or damaging. They have deep philosophical differences in how government should be run. If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.
Quote from: eyeresist on September 18, 2011, 09:44:55 PM
* Recent debt ceiling and FAA reauthorization crises were political terrorism.
Nothing at all hyperbolic about claims of terrorism.
Quote from: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 06:43:58 AMIf there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.
They still do when politically suitable solutions can be reached.
Quote from: Todd on September 19, 2011, 06:30:10 AM
(http://www.autonerdz.com/yabbfiles/avatars/UserAvatars/Mr._Bill.jpg)
Oh, nicely dismissive, Todd.
Well, I wasn't quite thinking of Sluggo...
I was mainly thinking of the capture of the system by moneyed interests. It's possible to fix, I think, but it would take a large popular movement to push back against moneyed interests, and I don't see it happening yet.
Quote from: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 06:43:58 AM
This is the kind of toxic rhetoric that is the problem and not the solution. I don't think that either party are malicious or damaging. They have deep philosophical differences in how government should be run. If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.
I haven't seem any inability by Democrats to compromise.
Quote from: Daverz on September 19, 2011, 09:02:52 AM
I was mainly thinking of the capture of the system by moneyed interests. It's possible to fix, I think, but it would take a large popular movement to push back against moneyed interests, and I don't see it happening yet.
Really? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 19, 2011, 01:32:03 PM
Really? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement)
I don't think this is a Tea Party issue, is it? I don't remember any Tea Party outrage over, say, the
Citizens United decision.
Quote from: Todd on September 19, 2011, 06:48:48 AM
Nothing at all hyperbolic about claims of terrorism.
See the linked article for context.
Quote from: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 06:43:58 AM
This is the kind of toxic rhetoric that is the problem and not the solution. I don't think that either party are malicious or damaging. They have deep philosophical differences in how government should be run. If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.
The Republic platform, from the day Obama was elected was to make him a one-term president, and to make sure he failed at everything he did, thus putting partisanship before the interest of the people.
The debt ceiling fracas was the most sensational instance of this. It's mind boggling to think of the money that's been spent worldwide in preparation of the serious possibility that the Republicans would lead the USA int default, just out of spite.
Less conspicuous is the fact that since Obama inauguration very few appointments have been approved (judges etc) just because the Republicans have found themselves unable to pronounce the word 'aye' or 'yes' since a black man moved into the White House. (They can, however, shout "You lie!", speaking of malice.) Large sections of the government's interface with citizens move a snail's pace because of this refusal to approve appointments - for which they will blame 'big government'.
That's politcal malice.
Quote from: eyeresist on September 19, 2011, 07:50:53 PMSee the linked article for context.
I did. The use of the word "terrorism" in this type of context is good, old fashioned hyperbole, whoever uses the term. I would have thought that was self-evident.
Quote from: Herman on September 20, 2011, 05:48:11 AMIt's mind boggling to think of the money that's been spent worldwide in preparation of the serious possibility that the Republicans would lead the USA int default, just out of spite.
And how much was spent in preparation Herman? Surely you have a bit of concrete information on this. Some mind boggling numbers would be interesting to read. As I remember it, Treasury rates were fluctuating inside normal trading ranges, not increasing significantly (say, 30-50 basis points), which is something one would expect to happen if the bond market took the risk seriously. All the expenditures you refer to must have taken place in what, the palladium market?
As to the supposed "serious possibility" of default, looks like you rely on the wrong sources for news. Eric Cantor is a pretty partisan guy by pretty much every account, and he's a pretty influential Republican, being House Majority Leader and all, yet he made it clear in publicized discussions with Republicans that occured well before the official "deadline" that default would not be allowed to happen.
Quote from: Herman on September 20, 2011, 05:48:11 AMLess conspicuous is the fact that since Obama inauguration very few appointments have been approved
Alas, this has been a regular political feature since the Clinton Administration. But now I guess now it's malicious whereas before it was constructive, or something like that.
Quote from: Todd on September 20, 2011, 06:21:56 AM
I did. The use of the word "terrorism" in this type of context is good, old fashioned hyperbole, whoever uses the term. I would have thought that was self-evident.
Yes, it's hyperbole, but it fits.
Quote
As to the supposed "serious possibility" of default, looks like you rely on the wrong sources for news. Eric Cantor is a pretty partisan guy by pretty much every account, and he's a pretty influential Republican, being House Majority Leader and all, yet he made it clear in publicized discussions with Republicans that occured well before the official "deadline" that default would not be allowed to happen.
That's not what the google machine is telling me (I searched "cantor on debt ceiling").
Quote
Alas, this has been a regular political feature since the Clinton Administration. But now I guess now it's malicious whereas before it was constructive, or something like that.
Who said it was constructive then?
Quote from: Daverz on September 20, 2011, 02:23:46 PMYes, it's hyperbole, but it fits.
Of course it doesn't. Please describe how the debt ceiling situation is equivalent to terrorism.
Quote from: Daverz on September 20, 2011, 02:23:46 PMThat's not what the google machine is telling me (I searched "cantor on debt ceiling").
It was in the print edition of BusinessWeek. Maybe they made it up.
Quote from: Daverz on September 20, 2011, 02:23:46 PMWho said it was constructive then?
No one, but there's more than a hint in the original post covering this topic that it is something new and specifically Republican in nature, when in fact it has been going on for quite a while. Now everyone wants to Bork someone for some reason, and senators are loathe to give up their privileges to block appointments.
For the curious, the original passages:
Quote• The debt-ceiling debate was an act of "political terrorism," in which the GOP concocted a crisis and used it to ensure that the party's unprecedented demands were met. [Lofgren] writes: "Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care."
• The August FAA reauthorization fight was another instance such of hostage-taking: "Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers, and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel—how prudent is that?—in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization."
Herman Cain...?
I know he lacks political experience, but what the country needs right now is a businessman- someone who knows economics. Obama and the Republican candidates look awful, but this guy I might actually end up wanting to vote for! :o (we'll see)
Quote from: Greg on October 03, 2011, 05:47:23 PM
Herman Cain...?
I know he lacks political experience, but what the country needs right now is a businessman- someone who knows economics.
Has anyone tried the guy's pizza? Any good? BTW isn't Romney a businessman?
on PerryAn interesting alt-right take on the problem with Texas politicians. Are they Texan nationalists who hate America?:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/09/28/why-rick-perry-and-the-texan-plutocracy-hate-america/
Quote from: Velimir on October 03, 2011, 10:37:47 PM
BTW isn't Romney a businessman?
Yes, but more of the job destroying kind than the job creating kind.
Quote
An interesting alt-right take on the problem with Texas politicians. Are they Texan nationalists who hate America?:
For some people the Civil War is not settled.
Quote from: Velimir on October 03, 2011, 10:37:47 PM
Has anyone tried the guy's pizza? Any good? BTW isn't Romney a businessman?
on Perry
An interesting alt-right take on the problem with Texas politicians. Are they Texan nationalists who hate America?:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/09/28/why-rick-perry-and-the-texan-plutocracy-hate-america/
They're American nationalists who hate America is a better description. But they hate the rest of the world even more. I'm not really familiar with the Russian political spectrum, so I don't know what to point to as an Russian equivalent. Perhaps you would need to mix an unreconstructed Stalinist with an very Orthodox (in the religious sense) monarchist and throw in a dash of neoNazism to get an Russian version.
At any rate, there are a number of people like this, and they're usually rather loud and noisy on the Internet, so it's hard to say how large a group they are and how influential (plus it is in the interest of the professional Left and the news organizations to exaggerate their size and influence)--but I think, thank God, their bark is much bigger than their bite so far.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2011, 08:46:33 AMPerhaps you would need to mix an unreconstructed Stalinist with an very Orthodox (in the religious sense) monarchist and throw in a dash of neoNazism to get an Russian version.
This marks the first time I can recall that someone has blended Stalinism and right-wing American politics. (Of course, I encountered revisionist lefties in college, including one true-blue Commie professor - of Soviet History, no less - who claimed that Stalin was a Fascist rather than Communist, so I guess the intellectual underpinnings are there.)
Quote from: Todd on October 04, 2011, 08:53:07 AM
This marks the first time I can recall that someone has blended Stalinism and right-wing American politics. (Of course, I encountered revisionist lefties in college, including one true-blue Commie professor - of Soviet History, no less - who claimed that Stalin was a Fascist rather than Communist, so I guess the intellectual underpinnings are there.)
Well, it's my underestanding that Stalinism is more or less a right wing (ie, conservative to ultra conservative) position in contemporary Russian politics. If I'm wrong, I hope Velimir or someone else will correct me.
That said, the standard libertarian view of Fascism is that it's really the same thing as Communism, and merely used a different terminology, and allowed a facade of private enterprise that Soviet and Chinese Communism didn't--but the official name of Hitler's movement was, after all, National
Socialism. The only real differences were the overt militarism and jingoistic nationalism (or in the German case, racism) we associate with Fascism but not Communism.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2011, 09:05:13 AMWell, it's my underestanding that Stalinism is more or less a right wing (ie, conservative to ultra conservative) position in contemporary Russian politics.
That may be true, though when I see the term I still automatically think of it in its historical context.
Despite whatever labels/descriptions one applies, the Commies and Fascists of the last century were basically just bloodthirsty tyrants. Of course, saying that they are similar will draw the ire of supporters of the far right and left.
Quote from: Velimir on October 03, 2011, 10:37:47 PM
Has anyone tried the guy's pizza? Any good?
Not really. It just goes to show how an impressive Cain is at business that he can successfully run a franchise that sells semi-disgusting food! :D
Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AMNot really.
As a lover of waxy cheese and excess salt, I take umbrage with your statement, sir!
Quote from: Todd on October 04, 2011, 09:49:32 AM
As a lover of waxy cheese and excess salt [...]
There you go: there's a market for anything ; )
On intrade today
Romney - 58%
Perry - 20%
Cain - 6%
Palin - 5%
Huntsman - 4%
Paul - 2.6%
Bachman - 1.4%
Quote from: Todd on September 20, 2011, 02:35:08 PM
Of course it doesn't. Please describe how the debt ceiling situation is equivalent to terrorism.
I think it's pretty obvious how using the threat of making the country default on its debt obligations to extract concessions is akin to terrorism.
Quote
It was in the print edition of BusinessWeek. Maybe they made it up.
Maybe. Or maybe you misread it. Or maybe they had imcomplete information, because a simple google search shows tons of information that clearly contradicts this.
Quote
No one, but there's more than a hint in the original post covering this topic that it is something new and specifically Republican in nature, when in fact it has been going on for quite a while.
I never remember anything on this scale with this many Congress members making credible threats to force the country into default.
Quote
Now everyone wants to Bork someone for some reason, and senators are loathe to give up their privileges to block appointments.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
BTW, Bork deserved to get "borked". He was and is a crazy asshole who had no business being on the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Daverz on October 04, 2011, 03:17:37 PMI think it's pretty obvious how using the threat of making the country default on its debt obligations to extract concessions is akin to terrorism.
It's not at all obvious. Please explain how playing politics with the debt ceiling is akin to terrorism. How are they similar?
Quote from: Daverz on October 04, 2011, 03:17:37 PMOr maybe you misread it.
Nope, I didn't misread it. As to how complete the information was, well I cannot say for certain. Generally, though, BW uses reliable sources. You need to dig a little deeper.
Quote from: Todd on October 04, 2011, 05:34:42 PM
It's not at all obvious. Please explain how playing politics with the debt ceiling is akin to terrorism.
There was more than "playing politics" going on here. There was a credible threat that they would take the country into default and tank the global economy. Really, you're just being obtuse at this point.
Quote
Nope, I didn't misread it. As to how complete the information was, well I cannot say for certain. Generally, though, BW uses reliable sources. You need to dig a little deeper.
The original claim was "yet he made it clear in publicized discussions with Republicans that occured well before the official "deadline" that default would not be allowed to happen."
This is simply not borne out by his own public statements on the issue documented in numerous places, e.g.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576090292573339046.html
But you read something in Businessweek that magically negates all these other reckless comments.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2011, 09:05:13 AM
Well, it's my underestanding that Stalinism is more or less a right wing (ie, conservative to ultra conservative) position in contemporary Russian politics. If I'm wrong, I hope Velimir or someone else will correct me.
Calling Stalinism "conservative" is too simplistic in my view. It's really the most extreme iteration of strong-state nationalism, which has been a part of Russian history since Peter the Great. The image of Stalin is nowadays mostly decoupled from communist ideology, which makes things more complicated. "Right-wing"? Maybe, depending on how you define that.
Quote from: Daverz on October 04, 2011, 06:48:45 PMThere was more than "playing politics" going on here. There was a credible threat that they would take the country into default and tank the global economy. Really, you're just being obtuse at this point.
I notice you failed to explain how playing politics with the debt ceiling is akin to terrorism, which is what
you claimed. I know why. They are not even close to the same.
As to what would have happened had the US defaulted in August, well, we cannot know for sure what would have happened, aside from the inevitable lawsuits against the government, but we do know what happened when the US defaulted in 1979. It was not, in fact, the end of the world. Rates went up, sure, but the global economy didn't tank. And that was at a time when the US was even more significant economically. Now, it's possible to say that the 1979 default was small and that what was at stake in August was huge, but I'd really like to see some numbers to back that up. Obviously, the US was never at risk of defaulting on its entire debt, but rather on the bills, notes, and bonds due on or shortly after the potential default date. How much was that Daverz? Would a default on, say, $50 billion in debt instruments
really have caused the global economy to tank? How about $100 billion? Where's the threshold? I'm not talking about short term market gyrations as a sign of economic tanking, mind you, but an impact to real GDP growth in the US and abroad. I don't think defaulting on sovereign debt is ever a good thing, and it was an unambiguously good thing that it did not occur, but I also don't succumb to alarmist cries that such an event would necessarily be calamitous. Just like the downgrade of US debt has not yet turned out to be the disaster it was feared to be. Maybe one day rates will skyrocket as a result. (I admit I did expect them to go up; bond market players had different ideas.)
As to Mr Cantor's supposedly reckless comments in the link you provided, I see a lot of posturing, and posturing that ultimately coincides with the outline of the debt ceiling agreement that was reached, as well as the article in BW. I don't see Cantor saying that there would be a default. Nor do I see him saying he agrees with the White House and would go along with whatever Obama requested. I see nothing reckless in what he said. In all of the statements from senior leaders I heard and read from all sources, I never heard anything that I would qualify as reckless. Let's just take one quote from the article you linked to, shall we:
"It's a serious vote and has serious consequences on both sides of the vote," Mr. Cantor said. "What we need to do and are committed to doing is making sure that we achieve spending cuts and effect real reforms so that the spending binge ends. We look at the debt limit vote as an opportunity for us to accomplish those goals."
Again, I see posturing, pandering to the base, and reiterating goals that Cantor and many Republicans had advocated since at least the beginning of the year. Where is the recklessness? Where is the terrorism, or whatever it is that is akin to terrorism?
Krauthammer's dish on the latest debate. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/punch-out-in-the-desert/2011/10/20/gIQAWRRg1L_story.html?hpid=z3)
Not-so-slick-Rick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-calls-for-major-spending-and-tax-cuts/2011/10/25/gIQAu7OUEM_story.html?hpid=z1) is offering up his economic plan today. It's got that gem of "privatizing" Social Security, one of the worst ideas in the history of the republic (though not for the reasons usually offered). Will this revive his campaign, or are his formidable hair's days numbered?
Oh, well, Governor Perry seems determined to marginalize himself, anyway. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perrys-birther-parade/2011/10/24/gIQAyFRNDM_story.html?hpid=z2)
Democrat voters have started feeling nostalgia for GWB after this guy showed up.
Reading that article seems extra weird for me because his thinking about reducing taxation on the rich to encourage economic growth seems to be following the logic of countries like Hong Kong, and yet that country has exceptionally low tax on the poor as well without harming its growth. The best way to prevent the poor from burdening the state welfare system would be to stop taking their money away from them.
So: does Cain drop out before the primaries even begin?
Quote from: karlhenning on November 17, 2011, 11:33:34 AMSo: does Cain drop out before the primaries even begin?
The same could be asked of Slick Rick or Crazy Eyes Bachmann. The answer: I hope not! I need to be entertained.
Aye, what happens if he wins in South Carolina? ; )
Quote from: karlhenning on November 17, 2011, 11:51:57 AMAye, what happens if he wins in South Carolina? ; )
Fun times for all!
Seriously, if anyone other than Romney gets the nod, it will be an embarrassment for the Republicans. He and Huntsman are the only serious candidates – meaning the only ones presenting plausible policy options – and only they or Gingrich would be able to stand toe-to-toe with Obama in debates.
Quote from: Todd on November 17, 2011, 11:57:25 AM
Seriously, if anyone other than Romney gets the nod, it will be an embarrassment for the Republicans.
The modern Republican Party is incapable of being embarrassed or ashamed.
Quote
He and Huntsman are the only serious candidates – meaning the only ones presenting plausible policy options – and only they or Gingrich would be able to stand toe-to-toe with Obama in debates.
I was really rooting for Cain, but a Newt Gingrich candidacy was just a fantasy at the time.
New poll out of New Hampshire:
http://nhjournal.com/2011/11/18/poll-romney-gingrich-in-statistical-dead-heat-in-n-h/ (http://nhjournal.com/2011/11/18/poll-romney-gingrich-in-statistical-dead-heat-in-n-h/)
Woohoo! Go Newt!
Quote from: Todd on November 17, 2011, 11:57:25 AM
Fun times for all!
Seriously, if anyone other than Romney gets the nod, it will be an embarrassment for the Republicans. He and Huntsman are the only serious candidates – meaning the only ones presenting plausible policy options – and only they or Gingrich would be able to stand toe-to-toe with Obama in debates.
Did you hear Prof. G."s town meeting today on CNN? boy, can't wait ::)
Quote from: Jennifer RubinThis is silliness on stilts.
RTWT here.
Ron Paul sticks it to Newt (and with a Minority Report style soundtrack . . . .)
http://www.youtube.com/v/CWKTOCP45zY
Gingrich's only real problem is that he's a douchebag.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2011, 07:06:44 AM
Ron Paul sticks it to Newt (and with a Minority Report style soundtrack . . . .)
That's very much aimed at Republican primary voters (particularly the cheap shot of the clip with Nancy Pelosi; taking a
real existential threat to Civilization seriously -- a stance since backslided on -- strikes me as admirable; it's the rest of 'em that are batshit crazy on this issue. And the individual mandate was a Republican idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation, I believe; it wasn't just Newt and Mitt promoting it a few years ago.)
The real problem with Gingrich is that he's a scammer. Doh! Todd beat me to it.
Separately . . . Wanna bet? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/all-bets-are-off-on-mitt-romney/2011/03/04/gIQADw56nO_blog.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2011, 07:06:44 AM
Ron Paul sticks it to Newt (and with a Minority Report style soundtrack . . . .)
http://www.youtube.com/v/CWKTOCP45zY
It doesn't take much to stick to Newt. He has a long history of doing dirty, underhanded things.
What happened here? Obama has become a bit unpopular for many reasons, so Romney seemed an easy and boring way to get the Republicans into power, but now it seems that only the unelectable Newt guy is left? I thought that all the nutters were already out of the running (Palin, Bachmann).
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on December 12, 2011, 09:38:58 AMWhat happened here? Obama has become a bit unpopular for many reasons, so Romney seemed an easy and boring way to get the Republicans into power, but now it seems that only the unelectable Newt guy is left? I thought that all the nutters were already out of the running (Palin, Bachmann).
Romney isn't conservative enough for many primary voters, and he's Mormon, which is viewed unfavorably by not a few evangelicals and the like. So now it's Newt's turn to be front-runner. Hopefully he'll put his foot in his mouth one too many times to win the nomination. It will be surprising if he doesn't. I'm fairly sure the Obama team would prefer running against Gingrich.
The GOP has a surprisingly deep nutter bench . . . that said, it seems to me that the party as a whole are not well served by the current pre-Primary season.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2011, 10:08:59 AMthat said, it seems to me that the party as a whole are not well served by the current pre-Primary season.
Indeed. Maybe next time.
Five Myths About Ron Paul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-ron-paul/2011/12/07/gIQAu3vOiO_story.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2011, 10:24:26 AMFive Myths About Ron Paul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-ron-paul/2011/12/07/gIQAu3vOiO_story.html)
One non-myth about Paul: He's unelectable.
(Not sure why Vince Vaugh is mentioned. I mean, I know I follow his political opinions closely, but not everyone does.)
Quote from: Jno CapehartBy decisively pulling out of the Newsmax debate and blunting whatever damage may come from being associated with what had all the makings of a spectacular failure, Trump is courageously protecting the one thing he holds most dear: Trump.
RTWT here.
(note-- the following is my opinion-- feel free to disagree. )
As an Independent who would actually like a candidate to vote for (vs vote against), I must admit that I wish that someone would challenge Obama. The current circus on the GOP side is tending to make Obama look better, and won't force him to improve his game. And for entertainment value, I'd just assume see the Democrats air their own brand of silliness more conspicuously.
I read an interesting article a while back about how the combination of the the electoral college and gerrymandering have created the scenario where the primary process is driven to select the people that most resonate with the base-- which is why all of this stuff with "pledges", "purity" etc have made it hard for any pragmatic leader type to come to the forefront. assuming one exists. The current anti-govt (unless it's defense, which is part of the govt as far as I'm concerned), anti-tax, anti-compromise litmus test is sending most of the reasonable candidates scurrying for cover. This type of fervor (on the left or right), gets people like Christine O'Donnell nominated over a much more electable candidate for the real election. Strangely enough, if gerrymandering where not so pervasive, the primary process would likely better favor more electable candidates.
It's a sad state of affairs when a completely transparent, soulless political creature like Romney ,who has no trouble adopting the flavor of the hour, is coming across as the most reasonable choice from that side of the aisle. And that I'd have to pick between him, or another for years of someone who is good at making speeches, but has not shown much of an ability to steer congress and manage those in his party.
Oh well , the perennial truth behind all elections is that only the comedians can be assured of coming out ahead every time.
It's just a shame that Lyndon Larouche is no longer running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche) His group was much like a cult, and since he's based in my county, they were more aggressive than moonies. I used to have a lot of fun playing with their minds. Of course, with the current playing field, Lyndon might win, and next thing you know, Navy Seals are forceably extradicting the Queen of England on drug trafficking charges.
Quote from: jowcol on December 15, 2011, 08:19:30 AM
(note-- the following is my opinion-- feel free to disagree. )
As an Independent who would actually like a candidate to vote for (vs vote against), I must admit that I wish that someone would challenge Obama. The current circus on the GOP side is tending to make Obama look better, and won't force him to improve his game. And for entertainment value, I'd just assume see the Democrats air their own brand of silliness more conspicuously.
Both parties are not equally silly. The Democrats are really trying to improve the economy, health care and come to an agreement on the budget. Furthermore, the measures they have taken have helped, though not enough. They can be criticized for being ineffective in finding a way to force Republicans to deal with problems. In contrast the Republican are following a strategy that makes every decision into a crisis for which they hope Obama will be blamed. For a good part of the electorate this has worked. But the cost to the country has been high. It means that every possible compromise position based on positions Republicans have supported in the past has been blocked. Republicans now routinely vote against their own proposals. In fact Republican positions are not designed to be implemented, they are designed to prevent even the slight possibility that anything helpful will be implemented until Obama is gone.
He'd cut every dime of foreign aid..... Both of them?
Things have come to a bad pass if Ron Paul starts to look reasonable. The man is an ignoramus.
Quote from: drogulus on December 15, 2011, 11:07:58 AM
Both parties are not equally silly. The Democrats are really trying to improve the economy, health care and come to an agreement on the budget.
We may need to choose not to see eye to eye on that. I think the Republicans have been worse in the last two years, but the Democratic Congress was equally eager to claim a mandate from the people they didn't have in 2008. And the democrats were unable to pass a budget when they were in power-- this could have delayed the budget crisis for a year, correct?
I'm unhappy about Obama stepping back from the milddle path and falling behind the "class warfare" tactics. , hiding issues such as the fact the the deductions for lear jets, etc, are insignificant compared to the mortage deduction which benefits more of the middle class.
I work in the health IT industry, and I'm one of the few people I know with an opinion on the Affordable Care Act that has ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN THING IN ITS ENTIRETY. (I got paid to do it-- in case you are wondering...) My take in a nutshell:
For the Republican Side:
Given their support by special interests on the provider, payer side, I haven't seen many of them them begin to provide a creditable alternative, or be able to take it far. (Although some of what Michael Enzi has suggested is a decent start). Still, I think the special interests that own them will never allow them to consider getting rid of the fee for service model, and the gouging in the payment process that has the counter-intuitive result of charging poor people more, and then making the rest of us eat the different.
Demonizing advanced directive counseling as "death panels" was one of the most absurd lies every propagated. Even Palin later denied she meant the term literally.
I don't think pushing everything to the states is the answer. I've worked with too many state health departments. And asking 50 different organizations to come up with their own way to meed a mandate is less likely to be efficient the sharing the effort. Not saying that a federal approach is always better.
For the Democratic side--
Too much was bundled in a single bill that didn't need to be. Administrative reform had few opponents and could have sailed through much faster if not tied to the larger mass.
Many good ideas, like Accountability Care Organizations, were undeveloped, since the push was to pass everything at once. This was a great idea to fix the fundamental problems in incentiviizations in health care, but lacked the depth to really make it happen.
There was not funding analysis for major elements like CLASS, which addressed a need, but did not have a prayer of being funded. Sibelius announced that it was being canceled a few months back. Not due to Republican opposition so much as there was simply not financial basis to maintain it.
The timelines for a lot of the programs spun off form it and the HITECH act are overly ambitious, despite with the fact that I support many of them, and feel they are A lot of providers will be eligible for incentive payments for meeting criteria that have been ludicrously softened since the govt was not able to put the necessary mechanisms in place. By doing too many things too quickly, in practice, we are watching them fail.
I haven't even addressed the issues of mandated coverage and preexisting conditions. Frankly, They needed to be addressed together, but I'm not sure if this was the time. That became a major lightning rod, and the Democrats did a hideous job of managing the message. And it was only ONE cause of spiraling health costs. My take was that Obama was strangely passive and let Pelosi and Reid throw the whole kitchen sink at the problem. The result will be killing many good ideas because of not setting an effective scope, message, and ability to execute. And it scares me more since the pendulum swing in teh other direction is only going to worsen the whole situation.
Sorry-- it's the caffeine talking, and the fact I'm trying to make that health bill work-- as are many others. My personal take is that is Obama is a gifted speaker and debator, and can say just the right thing. But I'd give him a poor grade on putting ideas into action. He's been most decisive, oddly enough, in an almost "hawkish" foreign policy if you look at the increase in drone strikes, reluctance to shut down Guantanamo, and his willingness to okay the raid the killed Bin Laden. I would have expected him to resist the Intel and DoD community more.
This is my take. FWIW-- I've tended to vote democrat more often than not. But I usually vote against the person who seems the most crazy or owned by special interests. One could say the Republicans are most obstructionist now, but the Democrats have been pretty fond of the Fillibuster in the Bush years. I don't see where either side is without blemish.
The fact that we are seeing this in terms of dogma and sides, and not in terms of issues is the heart of the problem.
Once again- my own opinion. You are all free to disagree, rebut, and savage as you wish.
I think Bush got more cooperation from Democrats, and there was willingness to compromise. The most important difference is that Democrats didn't feel that jeopardizing the country by making problems worse was a legitimate strategy to combat the Bush agenda. IOW the Dems penalized themselves by not adopting a nihilistic attitude. This sort of asymmetry is typical of the last few years. One side cares about what happens and is duty bound to prevent disaster while the other side is willing to do anything. Democrats must seek accommodation while Republicans won't. This is Obamas dilemma, because he needs to electorate to understand what's happening, while the Repubs are betting that people stupid enough to entertain Gingrich, Bachman or Perry as candidates won't see anything. The Repubs are making the easy bet: If you dumb down politics and drive down turnout, the biggest bullshitter wins.
Quote from: Todd on December 12, 2011, 09:50:41 AM
I'm fairly sure the Obama team would prefer running against Gingrich.
Pretty sad when a failure of a president has actually has a good chance against the competition.
Quote from: Greg on December 15, 2011, 02:08:01 PM
Pretty sad when a failure of a president has actually has a good chance against the competition.
Perhaps in time you'll see that Obama has accomplished a great deal. The cloud of the Great Recession has obscured this for now, though not entirely.
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc10/edefe/PinkFloyd-ObscuredByClouds1972-1.jpg)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
To an initially-enthused outsider, Obama just looks like a man-the-tiller guy like Bush (excluding a lot of the random war shit) without anything huge being done. Whether that's because the country has no money or not, I don't know.
OTOH maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe the majority is not fooled by the "equally to blame" meme.
From The New Republic:
Poll: It Isn't Both Sides' Fault
A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that public dissatisfaction with Congress has reached record levels, with 67 percent saying they want to throw most of the bums out (up from 49 percent in 2006) and 33 percent saying they want to throw their own bum out (up from 28 percent in 2006). Fifty percent say the current Congress has achieved less than other recent Congresses.
But the really interesting finding is that the public does not accept the "objective" message spoon-fed by the press that both sides are equally at fault. Instead, it (accurately) assigns most of the blame to the Republican party. Forty percent say Republican leaders are more to blame, as against a mere 23 percent who say Democratic leaders are more to blame. A larger proportion blames the GOP than blame both parties (32 percent). And among independents, 38 percent say Republicans are more to blame, against 15 percent who say Democrats are. So much for the hack story line that partisanship and political games-playing is paralyzing Washington. Partisanship and political games-playing by Republicans is paralyzing Washington.
Which party, Pew asked, is more extreme in its positions? Fifty-three percent say Republicans, against 33 percent who finger Democrats. (Only 1 percent says that neither side is more extreme.)
Which side is more willing to work with the other? Fifty-one percent say it's the Democrats, against 25 percent who say Republicans.
Which side can better manage the government? Forty-one percent say the Democrats against 35 percent who say the Republicans.
Which side is more honest and ethical? Forty-five percent say the Democrats, against 28 percent who say the Republicans.
Even Republicans are apparently fed up with Republicans in Congress. A higher proportion of Republicans (70 percent) than Democrats (60 percent) want to throw most of the bums out, even though Republicans have the House majority right now. A slightly higher proportion of Republicans (28 percent) than Democrats (25 percent) want to throw their own bum out. Only 49 percent of Republicans approve of the job the Republican congressional leadership is doing, against 60 percent of Democrats who approve of the job the Democratic congressional leadership is doing.
I hope the "objective" press reports these findings accurately, and doesn't bend itself into a pretzel trying to portray them as representing mere generalized disgust with partisan bickering in Washington.
If this is true the Republican strategy will backfire and Obama will be reelected. This may be the positive side of his cerebral, somewhat detached presentation that so infuriates his partisans. He's obviously trying to put out the fire, not burn down the house.
Quote from: drogulus on December 15, 2011, 02:42:53 PM
Perhaps in time you'll see that Obama has accomplished a great deal. The cloud of the Great Recession has obscured this for now, though not entirely.
Well, if the next couple of months keep getting better like they have been recently, I'll excuse him. That means when the next recession (the new one which will be caused by Europe) hits soon, the so-called "unemployment rate" might only go up to maybe 10%, rather than 12 or 13% (or some number like that- just estimating).
Quote from: drogulus on December 15, 2011, 02:01:51 PM
I think Bush got more cooperation from Democrats, and there was willingness to compromise. The most important difference is that Democrats didn't feel that jeopardizing the country by making problems worse was a legitimate strategy to combat the Bush agenda. IOW the Dems penalized themselves by not adopting a nihilistic attitude. This sort of asymmetry is typical of the last few years. One side cares about what happens and is duty bound to prevent disaster while the other side is willing to do anything. Democrats must seek accommodation while Republicans won't. This is Obamas dilemma, because he needs to electorate to understand what's happening, while the Repubs are betting that people stupid enough to entertain Gingrich, Bachman or Perry as candidates won't see anything. The Repubs are making the easy bet: If you dumb down politics and drive down turnout, the biggest bullshitter wins.
I think you're overlooking one aspect--that the Republican
electorate honestly thinks that Obama's policies, if implemented, would be an actual disaster, and that obstructing his agenda is the best of way keeping disaster at bay. The politicians take advantage of this; the charge of nihilism applies to them.
Quote from: jowcol on December 15, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
We may need to choose not to see eye to eye on that. I think the Republicans have been worse in the last two years, but the Democratic Congress was equally eager to claim a mandate from the people they didn't have in 2008. And the democrats were unable to pass a budget when they were in power-- this could have delayed the budget crisis for a year, correct?
I agree that the Democratic House (at the least) were roughly equal but opposite doofuses, and I am apt to think that Obama's missed opportunities were partly a function of his not managing discipline.
As someone who largely gives Obama some slack, I entirely see your point about wishing there were enough of an opposition (presidential campaign -wise) to incite him to improve his game.
Quote from: drogulus on December 15, 2011, 03:27:29 PM
OTOH maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe the majority is not fooled by the "equally to blame" meme.
From The New Republic:
Poll: It Isn't Both Sides' Fault
A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that public dissatisfaction with Congress has reached record levels, with 67 percent saying they want to throw most of the bums out (up from 49 percent in 2006) and 33 percent saying they want to throw their own bum out (up from 28 percent in 2006). Fifty percent say the current Congress has achieved less than other recent Congresses.
But the really interesting finding is that the public does not accept the "objective" message spoon-fed by the press that both sides are equally at fault. Instead, it (accurately) assigns most of the blame to the Republican party. Forty percent say Republican leaders are more to blame, as against a mere 23 percent who say Democratic leaders are more to blame. A larger proportion blames the GOP than blame both parties (32 percent). And among independents, 38 percent say Republicans are more to blame, against 15 percent who say Democrats are. So much for the hack story line that partisanship and political games-playing is paralyzing Washington. Partisanship and political games-playing by Republicans is paralyzing Washington.
Which party, Pew asked, is more extreme in its positions? Fifty-three percent say Republicans, against 33 percent who finger Democrats. (Only 1 percent says that neither side is more extreme.)
Which side is more willing to work with the other? Fifty-one percent say it's the Democrats, against 25 percent who say Republicans.
Which side can better manage the government? Forty-one percent say the Democrats against 35 percent who say the Republicans.
Which side is more honest and ethical? Forty-five percent say the Democrats, against 28 percent who say the Republicans.
Even Republicans are apparently fed up with Republicans in Congress. A higher proportion of Republicans (70 percent) than Democrats (60 percent) want to throw most of the bums out, even though Republicans have the House majority right now. A slightly higher proportion of Republicans (28 percent) than Democrats (25 percent) want to throw their own bum out. Only 49 percent of Republicans approve of the job the Republican congressional leadership is doing, against 60 percent of Democrats who approve of the job the Democratic congressional leadership is doing.
I hope the "objective" press reports these findings accurately, and doesn't bend itself into a pretzel trying to portray them as representing mere generalized disgust with partisan bickering in Washington.
If this is true the Republican strategy will backfire and Obama will be reelected. This may be the positive side of his cerebral, somewhat detached presentation that so infuriates his partisans. He's obviously trying to put out the fire, not burn down the house.
A: I like the "obscured by clouds" reference in the previous post.
B: Another way to look at a notion of being "equally to blame" is that, to me anyway, both parties are unbelievably cynical in their refusal to admit that complex problems are, indeed, complex, and require sacrifice across the board. And that a simple buzz word or passed by that is not monitored in execution is not enough. I see both parties as amoral corporations that exist to sell the product and protect their cash flow and market share. Between bogus ideologies and a blind eye to the particular special interest groups that provide funding, actual problem solution is not really an interest.
Matt Miller had an excellent editorial in the Washington Post a while back on why the notion of a third party is more necessary than ever. His thesis is that, in a sort of "evolution", the existing parties have adapted to get candidates elected, not to solve problems. When I read this, I honestly feel that someone has been able to articulate what I've been feeling for the last couple of decades.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-need-a-third-party/2011/09/25/gIQALQLGxK_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-need-a-third-party/2011/09/25/gIQALQLGxK_story.html)
This explains why, for example, discussions of unemployment have avoided things like the skills gap, globalization and international outsourcing of jobs (a major factor in why we haven't recovered as quickly from the meltdown) and other factors. Unfortunately, these issues are not addressed as publicly because of either concern for showing bad in the polls or offending a major contributor. I'll admit I'm terrified of the currently aired Republican theories on the economy, since they don't seem to have much of a historical basis. (Taxes at the lowest in 50 years-- where's the jobs?) We have also paid the price for business deregulation in the past (the Reagan S&L bailout that cost more then the Marshall plan, the real estate bubble, etc.) But I've also seen eagerness in passing bills for funding (aka, the Affordable Care Act), where the execution is lame. It would be better to start something limited an manage it to completion than start a lot of things half assed because they match a buzz word, and then watch them fade when the next administration takes over. Which is my major grief on the Democrat side. The ACA needs more messaging, care and feeding to work. Instead, a lot of $$ will be wasted, and the current administration is letting it happen. Is wasting money and failing to pu6 the right thing into action better than not doing it at all?
I'm more interested in results. The responsibility of the Executive branch is to ensure that passed legislation is put successfully into action. Simply passing a bill with the best intentions doesn't rate much in my book.
Final note: at the moment, the way things look, I'll be likely to pull the same levers you do in the voting booth in 2012. But it's only because I'm looking for the lessor of two evils between a Coke and a Pepsi-- two corporations that just want to perpetuate the market as long as they have a chance to increase share.
Quote from: Jennifer RubinHow does Gingrich say things that aren't true with such conviction? "Newt believes what is good for Newt is the truth," King says. And that is perhaps the scariest part of all.
RTWT here.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2011, 10:15:58 AM
RTWT here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/peter-king-on-gingrichs-problems-with-the-truth/2011/12/16/gIQAo8afyO_blog.html).
You've quoted Rubin a couple of times-- I'm glad the post includes her for balance. I also enjoy Charles Krauthammer's column. I don't always agree, but most of his positions are well reasoned, and he's always worth considering.
As far as issues with the truth-- most politicians, IMO, have a similar blind spot.
http://www.youtube.com/v/KiIP_KDQmXs#t=7s
Personally, I don't care about a politician's private life. i would have had no problems with him invoking the 5th Amendment. I wouldn't have cared if he preferred the company of goats. But if he needed to stand on the record, he could have told the truth....
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 15, 2011, 04:13:25 PM
I think you're overlooking one aspect--that the Republican electorate honestly thinks that Obama's policies, if implemented, would be an actual disaster, and that obstructing his agenda is the best of way keeping disaster at bay. The politicians take advantage of this; the charge of nihilism applies to them.
I don't agree that I'm overlooking this aspect. We have obstruction
now, and disaster looms
now along with the obstruction, and the poll shows that many people are not fooled by the notion that Obama caused the difficulties the Repubs are creating for him. They have pursued a total war strategy. To bring down Obama they had to bring down the country. Now they are reaping a bitter harvest. They bet the electorate would be too addled by fear and hatred to notice what they did. But an odd thing has happened. Ordinarily in dire circumstances people tend to blame whoever is charge for the crisis. If the poll is accurate, though, Repubs are getting an unusually large portion of it.
Perhaps people remember that Bush launched a vast tax cut that created almost no jobs while punching a hole in the budget that has come back to threaten us in exactly the way the opponents said it would (remember, the tax cut was "temporary" because it violated budget rules then in place to prevent the huge deficit that, uh, wasn't prevented).
The Repubs hate government so much they can't figure out what to do with it when they are in charge other than make it worse (well, that's
something). For 30 years they have been acting on a theory that lowering taxes on the top incomes will bring prosperity that more than offsets the lost revenue. Economists say it hasn't worked, and the data shows than changing tax rates has little effect on overall performance. I'm sure this is right, because not only did the U.S. prosper with high marginal rates, other countries do as well. The interesting question, as I see it, is this: Is it possible for a country to grow rich with low taxes and low government investment? And second, is it possible for a country to remain rich by following such a course? I think the answer is no, and the indications based on the limited information we have leads me to think it would be too dangerous an experiment to run.
The most plausible relation between taxing and spending and overall performance would seem to be that taxing has less influence and spending has more, but spending paid for by taxes is better than spending on credit. This would explain why social democracies defy the expectations of conservative theorists by remaining rich decade after decade. When they get in trouble they rebalance the social contract without turning to banana republic economics. The idea of making the whole country poorer to make the whole country richer somehow doesn't appeal. What's wrong with these socialists, do they lack common sense? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Conservatives discount social goods, seeing them purely as costs which drag down the economy. But this appears to be false. More social goods means more money circulates through the lower rungs, and that money travels faster and provides more boost than pools of money at the top. So one measure of success is how wealthy the poor people are. If they are relatively well off, as in a welfare state, everyone else does better, including the highly taxed rich. That's my take on how it actually works.
Quote from: drogulus on December 18, 2011, 06:46:19 AMIs it possible for a country to grow rich with low taxes and low government investment? And second, is it possible for a country to remain rich by following such a course?
The answer to the first question is yes. A case in point is the US in the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Government taxation and expenditures, or "investments" if you prefer, were miniscule by today's standards. The answer to the second question is possibly, though the desires of the electorate forbid it. Politicians may speak of the need to cut social programs, especially the big ones, but they'll be tweaked rather than fundamentally altered. It's hard to think of any wealthy society where citizens want to reduce the goodies they receive.
Quote from: drogulus on December 18, 2011, 08:24:42 AMThe most plausible relation between taxing and spending and overall performance would seem to be that taxing has less influence and spending has more, but spending paid for by taxes is better than spending on credit.
Conservatives discount social goods, seeing them purely as costs which drag down the economy.
These are both rather dubious statements. With respect to taxing and spending, both are identical from a budgetary standpoint, and from an economic standpoint neither can be said to be more effective in blanket terms. Tax cuts if properly structured and targeted can have as significant an impact, or perhaps a greater impact, than increased direct spending. Direct spending can likewise be structured to have a more significant impact than a tax cut. And of course, taxation can be used to curtail specific activities. Not for nothing did John Marshall remark that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The source of funds is of questionable relevance, as well. It's not possible to argue that the direct, debt funded expenditures of the 1930s and 1940s would have been more effective had they been funded by taxes, for instance. They couldn't have been. You'd have to provide some empirical evidence to back up this type of claim.
I'm also not sold on the notion that conservatives discount social goods in quite the manner you suggest. There is a different emphasis, and they tend to want less in the way of social goods, but I don't think that's quite the same as discounting them.
I must also say that people need to focus less on tax rates and more on overall taxation and distortions in the current system. Yes, the US had much higher top marginal rates before the 80s, but the OMB and CBO both show aggregate federal tax revenues operating in a narrow range (as a percentage of GDP) for decades. The peak of federal revenues as a percentage of GDP was in the Clinton years, by the way, when the top marginal rates were less than half what they were in the 1950s. Marginal rates are hardly the panacea many wish them to be. Further, contrary to what is often published, higher income people pay a higher percentage of federal taxes now than they did in 1979. This is based on CBO data that studied taxes from 1979 to 2007.
It would seem that the solution to America's fiscal "woes" are very clear. Entitlement spending needs to reformed, most importantly medical expenditures (and here the federal government can use its quasi-monopsony power to help do that to some extent, and it already does), and taxes need to be raised. From my perspective it makes much more sense to eliminate subsidies and loopholes (which are subsidies themselves) before raising rates. Top rates will have to rise, but to go to them first doesn't address other ongoing problems.
Perhaps the low tax option of the late 18th century is foreclosed to us now. Economic success was boosted by investments that didn't require the kind of taxes we have today. But we can't go back. Modern states have to tax the way they do. If you need to go back a couple of centuries IOW my point is effectively made. It looks like you can't run a modern state without modern taxes, which is why no state does it. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif) *
I wish conservatives would say they only discount social goods to some extent. Their arguments usually have an absolutist thrust (you know, the gummint has no right to tax your money). I hate that! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif) Surely the gov't has
some right to tax, the right being in the Constitution and all. And if it has
some right, the argument collapses.
Quote from: Todd on December 18, 2011, 09:00:17 AM
It's hard to think of any wealthy society where citizens want to reduce the goodies they receive.
The problem is that while some goods are "goodies" many are vital and their absence or diminution impoverish the country. But we'll have to be careful about this.
Quote from: Todd on December 18, 2011, 09:00:17 AM
It would seem that the solution to America's fiscal "woes" are very clear. Entitlement spending needs to reformed, most importantly medical expenditures (and here the federal government can use its quasi-monopsony power to help do that to some extent, and it already does), and taxes need to be raised. From my perspective it makes much more sense to eliminate subsidies and loopholes (which are subsidies themselves) before raising rates. Top rates will have to rise, but to go to them first doesn't address other ongoing problems.
I certainly agree, but I think that the decline in government investment is as important a factor in U.S. decline as any other and perhaps more important. We are running out of steam on the computer, Internet, satellite era. Now we need to find something new. I would increase energy investment with a smart electric grid that rapidly allocates power where needed and cuts resistance loss on long lines. That's a big project, the kind government ought to be involved in. We also need a more vigorous space program. What else? Improved air traffic control and new airports (new runways on old ones, too). We have to think synergistically about the entire transportation network and how it works, or doesn't. The fact that some of these are liberal pet projects is not an argument against them IMO.
* No state a GMGer would be caught living in, that is. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on December 18, 2011, 09:35:29 AMIf you need to go back a couple of centuries IOW my point is effectively made.
I'm going back only one century, before the now evil Wilson became prez. If a society chooses to roll back social programs it would, in theory, be possible to have fast growth with small government. That's what some people want. Most do not. It will not happen.
Quote from: drogulus on December 18, 2011, 09:35:29 AMWe are running out of steam on the computer, Internet, satellite era. Now we need to find something new. I would increase energy investment with a smart electric grid that rapidly allocates power where needed and cuts resistance loss on long lines. That's a big project, the kind government ought to be involved in. We also need a more vigorous space program. What else? Improved air traffic control and new airports (new runways on old ones, too). We have to think synergistically about the entire transportation network and how it works, or doesn't. The fact that some of these are liberal pet projects is not an argument against them IMO.
I disagree with the assertion that we are running out of steam. Overall investment, measured in R&D dollars as a percent of GDP, has never been higher, at least according to the National Science Foundation. The expense has shifted to the private sector, which I view positively. In terms of basic infrastructure, I have no problem with government involvement in developing a new power grid, enhanced air traffic safety, and roads, though at least in the case of the first item, I'd prefer using tax incentives to spur the development rather than government mandates. (On the flip side, I also have no problem with private roads, though those really won't catch on; companies have learned they may not always be especially profitable.) We need to be careful about silly projects, like bridges to nowhere and train systems that no one will use. I live in a choo-choo happy state, and 2-3 times a week, I see a poorly thought out train that is less than 50% full. Opponents to the train pointed out long before it was completed that a far cheaper alternative would be enhanced bus use, but that's not as slick as a new train. All alternatives should be explored when building out infrastructure.
As to space, the military space program is still quite robust, and unmanned exploration is continuing apace - if memory serves, we are currently investigating six different celestial bodies simultaneously, a new record - so I'm not convinced that a huge new push is needed there. I'd have to see some cost-benefit analyses regarding specific projects before thinking it was a good idea. Going to Mars sounds nice, for instance, and would be a great achievement in itself, but it wouldn't really add much value to society as a whole as existing technologies would be refined rather than entire new ones developed. Given that space travel is in many ways a mature technology, I'd like to see a lot of it handed over to the private sector for commercial exploitation. Of course, when China gets closer to going to the moon, various politial types will get all riled up, and the space program will get more public funding. I just hope to not see politicians saying that we have to beat China to the moon again, as one did a few years ago, when the Chinese government announced its plans to go.
Quote from: drogulus on December 18, 2011, 06:46:19 AMIs it possible for a country to grow rich with low taxes and low government investment?
Depends what you mean by "country". It's a recipe for a few people to grow immensely rich, in which case the
average income etc is raised. But my understanding is that in the US, and the rest of the West for that matter, the majority of people remained pretty damned poor until the post-WW2 boom. As Douglas Adams put it, "nobody was really poor. At least, nobody worth speaking of."
Quote from: Jennifer RubinThe New Newt is even less constrained by reason, law and prudence than the Old Newt.
But then, that could be what the Tea Party likes about him.
RTWT here.Quote from: EJ Dionne JrThere are certainly enough contradictions in his record, and he carries more baggage than an overburdened hotel porter. When National Review, that keeper of conservative ideological standards, recently criticized Gingrich for "his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas," its editors were reciting from a catechism that his critics wrote long ago. Meet the new Newt, same as the old Newt.
RTWT here.Quote from: EJ Dionne Jr. . . the next drama in this fascinating train wreck of a campaign.
Quote from: EJ Dionne Jr on December 19, 2011, 11:37:57 AM
National Review, that keeper of conservative ideological standards, recently criticized Gingrich for "his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas,"
Of course, only the
bolded section bothers the Base.
Gee, snark much? :D
I'd give an objective review of the Republican candidates if there were actually some running...
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 19, 2011, 04:15:10 PM
I'd give an objective review of the Republican candidates if there were actually some running...
good one! ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 19, 2011, 11:37:57 AM
But then, that could be what the Tea Party likes about him.
RTWT here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrichs-scary-judicial-views/2011/12/18/gIQATsk22O_blog.html?hpid=z4).
RTWT here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-and-the-revenge-of-the-base/2011/12/16/gIQA8aBE3O_story.html).
Newt attended the same college (Emory)I did, although we were fifteen years apart (Newt was class of 1965, I was class of 1980). I used to be a little proud of this fact. Now it's a very embarrassing thing. Terrifying, when you think of it, since he almost certainly had some of the same professors as I did, especially in the History Department.
On the other hand, we remain the only university in the world who can list the Dalai Lama as a member of the faculty.
ETA: just realized that, via me, all of you can say that Gingrich, the Dalai Lama, and President Carter fall within your personal six degrees of acquaintance.
...the Foreign Policy Thread...
US Foreign Policy = making the world safe for compound interest!
Quote from: snyprrr on December 19, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
...the Foreign Policy Thread...
US Foreign Policy = making the world safe for compound interest!
:P
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 19, 2011, 06:29:20 PM
Newt attended the same college (Emory)I did, although we were fifteen years apart (Newt was class of 1965, I was class of 1980). I used to be a little proud of this fact. Now it's a very embarrassing thing. Terrifying, when you think of it, since he almost certainly had some of the same professors as I did, especially in the History Department.
On the other hand, we remain the only university in the world who can list the Dalai Lama as a member of the faculty.
ETA: just realized that, via me, all of you can say that Gingrich, the Dalai Lama, and President Carter fall within your personal six degrees of acquaintance.
Now I'm trying to imagine the Dalai Lama as a
lobbyist historian.
As to Dionne's reference to the "Train wreck of a Campaign"-- it reminds me of a discussion at work about a wanna-be Machiavellian character in another division. My boss said " I don't mind his being diabolical. I just wish he was competent at it." That tends to summarize my feeling about the whole crew-- along with Obama as well. For all of the hype we've heard on both sides, the truth is much more banal.
Funny how Romney and Grinch Gingrich used the death of Kim Jong Il to say how this was the time to come out hard on North Korea, and lambasted Obama for not applying strong diplomatic pressue. Hmm. Despotic, dysfunctional country we know nothing about? Has Nukes? Our ally has their capital 40 km from the border? What's to lose? I'm sure the people at the Pentagon, Ft. Meade and Langley rolled their eyes at that one.
It just goes to show that in politics, like television, you can't go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people...
Quote from: jowcol on December 20, 2011, 11:10:52 AM
Now I'm trying to imagine the Dalai Lama as a lobbyist historian.
He comes every couple of years to lead seminars and lectures on topics such as ecumenicism (Emory is actually a leading Methodist university), science and religion, etc.
Also within the six degrees of Emory Bacon are Kenneth Cole, the Indigo Girls, the guy who heads up NPR's Marketplace Today, and the theology prof who came up with the "God is Dead" idea back in the 1960s.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 20, 2011, 06:45:46 PM
and the theology prof who came up with the "God is Dead" idea back in the 1960s.
I didn't know Nietzsche was a Methodist.
In the Orlando Sentinel, the political cartoon was of a kid elephant sitting in Santa's lap, telling him what he wants for Christmas.
"A candidate..."
"Logic, however, is a flimsy leash for a mind as protean as Gingrich's . . . ." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gingrich-the-anti-conservative/2011/12/20/gIQALq8CAP_story.html)
Quote from: Todd on December 12, 2011, 10:34:42 AM
One non-myth about Paul: He's unelectable.
Futility and tenacity . . . somehow that pair of adjectives makes me think of a certain French opera, or of a certain contemporary of Berlioz's . . . .Ron Paul's record in the House stands out for its futility and tenacity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html?hpid=z2)
For the record: Critiquing Mitt as Dudley Do-Right in a Kim Kardashian world is grossly unfair to Dudley Do-Right . . . why don't these journalists do their homework?
Don't Count Mitt Romney Out of the 2012 GOP Nomination Battle Yet (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/12/don-t-count-mitt-romney-out-of-the-2012-gop-nomination-battle-yet.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 27, 2011, 06:43:33 AMFutility and tenacity
And bigotry, too! Oh, wait, I forgot, Mr Paul didn't actually read or write those articles that appeared in the journals with his name emblazened on them. Clearly he demonstrates the leadership and managerial acumen necessary to be prez.
The mere thought of a racist old grandpa from Texas as president is hilarious. Maybe his supposed support among youg people is more of the ironic kind.
Hah!
I thought that the criticism of him came from him being ideological but impractical, and unchanging in the face of "common sense". Surely if he was some super racist, he wouldn't be in the closet about it.
Within three hours, Gingrich would move the US Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. ::)
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on December 27, 2011, 10:25:16 AM
I thought that the criticism of him came from him being ideological but impractical, and unchanging in the face of "common sense". Surely if he was some super racist, he wouldn't be in the closet about it.
He's downplayed his, erm, history. So far as I can tell, he's not yet been generally called on the carpet for it, because his prior "sideshow" status did not compel the sort of scrutiny which is pointed towards a front-runner, Sara. But, he's now verging on The Big Time.
Ron Paul, the GOP and race (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/ron-paul-the-gop-and-race/2011/03/04/gIQAqPpmKP_blog.html)
Quote from: snyprrr on December 27, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
Within three hours, Gingrich would move the US Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. ::)
Was there, you know, a sort of twinkle in his eye when he said that?
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on December 27, 2011, 10:25:16 AMI thought that the criticism of him came from him being ideological but impractical, and unchanging in the face of "common sense".
That's but
one thing to criticize. Candidates can and do have more than one fault. Sometimes.
Too much fun!
Capehart: Gingrich is right about Ron Paul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/newt-gingrich-is-right--about-ron-paul/2011/03/04/gIQAzj8SMP_blog.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 28, 2011, 09:50:35 AM
Too much fun!
Please to refer to the first part of the first post in this thread. I stand by my original assessment.
----------
I will exclude candidates like Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, and all similar less than no names. (It's just too much work to include them). So, here we go:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bachmann2011.jpg/96px-Bachmann2011.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Ron_Paul%2C_official_Congressional_photo_portrait%2C_2007.jpg/96px-Ron_Paul%2C_official_Congressional_photo_portrait%2C_2007.jpg)
Nuts.
----------
You know, I'm thinking maybe the Republicans should draft a new candidate. I say go for Kristi Noem from South Dakota. She's, um, photogenic. (Maybe a Romney/Noem ticket for 2012?)
(http://www.kevinwebb22.com/wp-content/gallery/kristi-noem-photos/kristi-noem-photos-pictures-pic-republican-11.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on August 13, 2011, 07:56:59 AM
I will exclude candidates like Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, and all similar less than no names. (It's just too much work to include them). So, here we go:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bachmann2011.jpg/96px-Bachmann2011.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Ron_Paul%2C_official_Congressional_photo_portrait%2C_2007.jpg/96px-Ron_Paul%2C_official_Congressional_photo_portrait%2C_2007.jpg)
Nuts.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg/96px-Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Herman_Cain_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/96px-Herman_Cain_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Rick_Santorum_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/100px-Rick_Santorum_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Ambassador_Jon_Huntsman.jpg/96px-Ambassador_Jon_Huntsman.jpg)
Who?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Newt_Gingrich_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg/103px-Newt_Gingrich_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg)
Ha, good one!
(http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mitt_romney1.jpg) (http://southpawbeagle.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rick-perry.jpg)
May the best hair win.
Good call.
Quote from: Todd on December 28, 2011, 10:22:16 AM
She's, um, photogenic.
Hey, I've seen that justification somewhere before... ;D
BTW, Romney seems to be failing in his role as Democrat-in-Disguise with all the Iran stuff.
This piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-candidates-face-historical-headwinds/2011/12/21/gIQAdNWUEP_story.html) includes this chuckleworthy remark:Quote from: Geo. WillGingrich, who has been elected to nothing since 1996 — the year "Braveheart" won the Academy Award for Best Picture and the Internet was used by just 45 million people worldwide — says that he is more electable than Mitt Romney. Even if true, this claim might be a Gingrich rarity: a minimalist boast.
More popcorn! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/kent-sorenson-bachmanns-iowa-chair-defects-to-paul/2011/12/28/gIQALSDPNP_blog.html)
8 votes, huh...
Thank goodness for Perry & Bachmann receiving very little votes.
Even more so, for Ron Paul's far-behind third-place showing.
Quote from: North Star on January 04, 2012, 06:02:52 AMThank goodness for Perry & Bachmann receiving very little votes.
Looks like they're set to drop out. Shucks.
Then it really will be no fun, all grouch . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on January 04, 2012, 06:56:32 AMThen it really will be no fun, all grouch . . . .
We can still ponder the Deep Musings of that Great Thinker, Ron Paul. That's amusing.
Looks like it's Romney all the way, then.
Quote from: Greg on January 04, 2012, 07:54:36 AMLooks like it's Romney all the way, then.
It does look that way. The NY Times online already had an article about how the Obama team is determining how to tarnish him: flip-flopper or too conservative.
Quote from: Todd on January 04, 2012, 08:02:56 AM
It does look that way. The NY Times online already had an article about how the Obama team is determining how to tarnish him: flip-flopper or too conservative.
Well, if you can't make yourself look good, I guess making your opponent look bad is the only other option... :-X
At the very least, that match-up should make for some colorful health care debates . . . .
Santorum: No One Has Ever Died Because They Didn't Have Health Care (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-no-one-has-ever-died-because-they-didnt-have-health-care/politics/2011/12/06/31304)
Some of these candidates scares the shit out of me.
Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Newt: Rum, Sodomy & the Lash
Quote from: The new erato on January 05, 2012, 06:35:55 AM
Some of these candidates scares the shit out of me.
They scare you? How do you think I feel, living in the same country as them?
And, what is worse, living in the same country as the people who seriously think they would be good as President.
Quote from: The new erato on January 05, 2012, 06:35:55 AMSome of these candidates scares the shit out of me.
Those same candidates are the ones the Obama team would love to run against. If, by some miracle (?), Ron Paul got the nod, Obama would crush him like a bug in a race that would make '32, '64, and '84 look like hotly contested races. Santorum would not get crushed quite so badly. No, he'd be the Republican Walter Mondale. Gingrich would be a nastier Bob Dole. Perry doesn't matter. Bachmann is out. You have nothing to fear.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 05, 2012, 06:59:22 AM
They scare you? How do you think I feel, living in the same country as them?
And, what is worse, living in the same country as the people who seriously think they would be good as President.
Yes, I was thinking of posting that what's really scary is that a sigificant number of people actually vote for them when, as Todd points out; they actually stand few chances of winning.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 05, 2012, 06:59:22 AM
They scare you? How do you think I feel, living in the same country as them?
And, what is worse, living in the same country as the people who seriously think they would be good as President.
Yes. From what I can see from over here, not one of them would get my vote. Perhaps a kick in the balls and a word to get real would be more appropriate.
Face your fear!
Quote from: John of Clydebank on January 05, 2012, 07:06:26 AMYes. From what I can see from over here, not one of them would get my vote.
Good thing they aren't running in Scotland. In a way, your post reminds me a poll in 2004, when John Kerry polled at something like 90% in one Scandinavian country. (Can't remember if it was Denmark or Norway.) I understand why various foreign people may dislike certain candidates, but the US electorate has its own priorities.
Man, Denmark or Norway can have Kerry.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2012, 07:26:03 AM
Man, Denmark or Norway can have Kerry.
It's not a windsurfing climate :(
(http://i.imgur.com/r2tfh.jpg)
Great market for ketchup, though.
". . . dodges so lame as to not merit repeating." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/ron-paul-on-piers-morgan-blames-staff-for-tweet/2012/01/05/gIQATiXlcP_blog.html)
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 05, 2012, 07:28:23 AM
It's not a windsurfing climate :(
(http://i.imgur.com/r2tfh.jpg)
Quote
In case Kerry is a secret reader here: Not quite true.
Quote
http://www.datrip.com/home/europe/Denmark/north_sea_areas/Klitmoller/klitmoller.html
Klitmøller
The once sleepy fishing village became northern Europes windsurfing mekka in the mid 90´s. This was the place to go when You wanted to do serious wavesailing at the north sea. The reason for that is the bend in the coastline which gives one of the rare opportunities in Denmark to sail west wind directions more or less sideshore. Plus the sometimes huge waves that come to this part of the coast. So everybody who considered him- or herself as serious wavesailor came here. The wind was good, the waves were good, parking was easy, campgrounds and appartements offered plenty of opportunities to spend the night, parties in the Braendingen or the one or other appartement were legendary, the mood was cult.
In 1995 the guys from the surfers magazine started the first soulwave contest. This contest combined windsurfing,surfing and kiteboarding under the name of soul. Parties have been legendary. ... windsurfing: with winds from the south to southwest musselreef is still one of the best wavesailing locations in Europe. It rains a lot with these conditions and currents are strong but wind and waves allow for very fine wavesailing and jumping. Wave 360´s, aerials, push loops and freestyle tricks at the inside are shown by local danes and visiting germans, swedes or other nordic folks when musselreef is on. The level is very high and conditions can get very challenging. Westerly winds are o.k. inside the bay. They bring also some decent waves but the orientation of the breaks is just not ideal. Still very good jumping though. Northwest is still sailable but no fun. North is full onshore inside the bay but makes the musselreef work again. Northeast after a strom passed brings unreal wavesailing conditions at the musselreef again. Bring waveboards and small sails.
Quote from: Greg on January 04, 2012, 08:04:23 AM
Well, if you can't make yourself look good, I guess making your opponent look bad is the only other option... :-X
That seems to be the winning formula these days....
Quote from: James on January 05, 2012, 07:23:11 AMPaul would absolutely DESTROY Obama in a debate.
Nonsense. Ron Paul is a doofus. All Obama would have to do is mention drug policy and let Paul ramble on like an idiot. Then Obama could bring up the Fed and currency and banks and let Paul ramble on like an idiot. Then Obama could bring up foreign policy and let Paul ramble on like an idiot. An easy winning formula.
Quote from: toucan on January 05, 2012, 01:36:45 PMAnd then Ron Paul's lamest grandchild can bring up the state of the economy and let Obama ramble like an idiot...
If current trends continue - which is somewhat dependent on the dimwits of Europe getting their collective act together - the economy should be in better shape around election time. Unemployment will be lower, though still not at anywhere near 5%-6%, and growth should pick up a bit. Obama will not have the type of conditions that prevailed in 1984, but they will be moving in a positive direction. That and a comparatively weak Republican candidate in Romney, or any other candidate from the current field, will help. I'm not a particular fan of Obama, excluding his most recent foreign policy moves which I rather like, I'm just looking at the economic and political realities. And one of those realities is that Ron Paul is a doofus.
As to anyone who places
any credence in the ramblings of Paul and his ilk, I'd love to see an explanation as to how the monetary policy he espouses would be helpful in the current economic climate. Something more than 'the Fed is printing lots of money' would be nice.
Quote from: James on January 05, 2012, 03:57:12 PMIn a fair & balanced debate situation Paul would just rip Obama apart on the issues.
More nonsense. It is good, though, to see the type of person who supports Paul. Obama is hardly the sage the left portrays him to be, but he's much smarter than Paul, and much savvier politically. That's why he is president and why Ron Paul has managed to pass about 0.2% of bills he's introduced in Congress.
As to his being informed, well, you are easily duped. Paul is a charlatan, and anyone with basic education in economics knows it. The reason I asked you - apparently a proud Paul supporter - to explain how Paul's monetary policy ideas will help the economy is because I want to know what
you have absorbed, and how
you can explain it. Using references to YouTube to appear informed doesn't work; you appear to be another typical Paul supporter who falls for charlatanism every time, and confuses internet proselytizing for substance. (I'll leave reading candidates' tomes to others.) So again, I ask
you, or another Paul supporter, please explain how Paul's preferred policies will help.
Quote from: James on January 05, 2012, 07:23:11 AM
Paul would absolutely DESTROY Obama in a debate.
I don't think that Obama has much under the surface, but he's performed well in debates. I would also say that, unfortunately, winning a debate has little to do with the soundness of arguments, but rather how well the person delivers the buzzwords and "warm and fuzzies". Unfortunately, it's more like the Q&A portion of a a beauty pageant than an intellectual debate. Obama still might take the swimsuit competition.
I'm not on board with Paul in general, but he has been more consistent in aligning his actions with philosophy than most of the other candidates to date.
Quote from: James on January 05, 2012, 07:23:11 AM
Paul would absolutely DESTROY Obama in a debate.
Pfffft! Your view is totally corrupt here. ROFLMAO
Heck, just the thought of Paul having his feet held to the fire about that Jon Huntsman tweet is a guilty pleasure. He wasn't a debater there, just a denier in the Herman Cain mold.
Huntsman picks up Boston Globe endorsement over Romney, state's former governor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/huntsman-gets-early-start-to-another-day-of-campaigning-in-nh/2012/01/05/gIQAUmsUcP_story.html?hpid=z3)
Krauthammer on Santorum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-worthy-challenger/2012/01/05/gIQAGeRfdP_story.html?hpid=z3)
Rick Santorum's Anti-Abortion Politics Would Have Killed His Own Wife (http://jezebel.com/5873158/rick-santorums-anti%20abortion-stance-would-have-killed-his-own-wife?mid=57033)
Quote from: James on January 05, 2012, 06:11:04 PMinform yourself
Silly James, I know about Paul's positions, and I have since he first popped up in the 90s. I know he's a fruitcake, and I've known for a long time.
Tell you what, let's make it really simple for you. Explain how Paul's support for competing currencies makes for good policy and would help improve the economic siutation in the country. Hopefully you will have the time and energy for that. Again, I want to see how
you explain, to see how much
you understand. Any other Paul supporter can jump right in, too.
Quote from: Todd on January 06, 2012, 06:37:01 AM
Silly James, I know about Paul's positions, and I have since he first popped up in the 90s. I know he's a fruitcake, and I've known for a long time.
Silly, and typical: rings true with all the times he has told people with subtler ears than his own, that they should just listen to the music.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 06, 2012, 06:40:46 AMSilly, and typical: rings true with all the times he has told people with subtler ears than his own, that they should just listen to the music.
Apparently, James thinks that since
he has discovered Paul,
Dr Paul is the fountain of wisdom. All others are wrong. Those who disagree need to learn, need to educate themselves. It's the kind of thing believers in UFOs might say.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 06, 2012, 05:03:52 AM
Krauthammer on Santorum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-worthy-challenger/2012/01/05/gIQAGeRfdP_story.html?hpid=z3)
My favorite part of that article was:
Quote
Gingrich speaks of aligning himself with Santorum against Romney. For Newt's campaign, this makes absolutely no strategic sense. Except that Gingrich is after vengeance, not victory. Ahab is loose in New Hampshire, stalking his great white Mitt.
Krauthammer is entertaining-- I love him on "Inside Washington" as he is the only conservative I(more in a fiscal/foregin policy sense) on a panel of liberals, and he definitely has the best zingers.
Quote from: James on January 05, 2012, 07:23:11 AM
Paul would absolutely DESTROY Obama in a debate.
:o :o ::):o :-\ :'( :D :D :D ;D
Remember those cultists who killed themselves to join the flying saucers? Ron Paul is a bit like that.
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/moochcassidy/1463_heavens_gate_468.jpg)
Ron Paul wants to eliminate most of government. What would happen if he got his way? We will never know, and don't have much reason to find out. There are experiments that are not run because it would be destructive to do so.
Of course it might be true that if we reduced government to 5% of GDP or so the flying saucers would swoop down and give everyone a social safety net or make young people save for their retirement or restore savings wiped out by a depression or give health care to the nonrich. But would you bet your life on it? I wouldn't. But maybe we could get people on another planet to run the test, people we don't like much. That way nothing would be lost if the likely result occurred.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 04, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Santorum: No One Has Ever Died Because They Didn't Have Health Care (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-no-one-has-ever-died-because-they-didnt-have-health-care/politics/2011/12/06/31304)
Guess who isn't getting my vote?
Quote from: Todd on January 05, 2012, 01:54:10 PM
If current trends continue - which is somewhat dependent on the dimwits of Europe getting their collective act together - the economy should be in better shape around election time. Unemployment will be lower, though still not at anywhere near 5%-6%, and growth should pick up a bit. Obama will not have the type of conditions that prevailed in 1984, but they will be moving in a positive direction.
The unemployment rate just dropped down to 8.5%, and they are saying that next year it should be continuing to get better.
Makes me wonder what the reason for this is... is the stimulus package kicking in and just taking forever, is it policy changes?, etc.
Quote from: Greg on January 06, 2012, 06:28:23 PM
The unemployment rate just dropped down to 8.5%, and they are saying that next year it should be continuing to get better.
Makes me wonder what the reason for this is... is the stimulus package kicking in and just taking forever, is it policy changes?, etc.
No, the stimulus produced about 3 million jobs, then it stalled. State and local governments contracted, a form of counterstimulus. What we're experiencing is the slow recovery that was predicted. In 2012 we're supposed to have about 2.5% growth, enough to boost employment a little more. We'll probably still be at 8% by election time.
Destroying Obama in a debate wouldn't be all that difficult. All the man has to offer is after all nothing more then empty rhetoric. He is no different in that respect from the other candidates, he just has a bit more charm, which is enough to win the hearts of the democrats, who are by and large just as superficial as the average republican, despite their delusion to the contrary.
Ron Paul may not be perfect but you know he must be doing something right if he's catching the ire of the corrupt establishment.
Quote from: drogulus on January 06, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
Ron Paul wants to eliminate most of government. What would happen if he got his way? We will never know
Ever heard of a little country called Iceland?
The vitriol, lies and absurd accusations thrown against Ron Paul in this thread really demonstrates how infantile and irrational democrats really are. And this is supposed to be the party of reason and logic. Laughable.
http://www.youtube.com/v/meFjza6BpEA
Aside from the Afghanistan government failing (with the implication that it completely collapses, which it hasn't), I don't see much wrong with what he details here. For somebody who wants to avoid foreign intervention, he seems to understand the web of foreign interest quite well. More so than most of the people in the same room as him during that speech, who were voting on things they had no inkling about.
While I don't like cultists (and the background music to this clip reveals that agenda), the speech itself is interesting. I made a point not to look at the overlayed headlines so that they didn't influence me, and still found this politician persuasive. Compare what he was saying then to what other politicians were, and who has had to retract their opinions most substantially - or who were unwilling to even think about "what if"s like that, let alone stick their necks out about them.
Quote from: drogulus on January 06, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
Ron Paul wants to eliminate most of government. What would happen if he got his way? We will never know
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 02:41:31 AM
Ever heard of a little country called Iceland?
I was thinking more along the lines of Somalia, but with nuclear weapons. :o
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 02:41:31 AM
Ever heard of a little country called Iceland?
Iceland benefits from a unique amount of natural resources. Little American city states could never reach that level of success.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 07, 2012, 03:39:41 AM
Iceland benefits from a unique amount of natural resources. Little American city states could never reach that level of success.
Don't go mad, Lethe :D. He means it ok.
Henk
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 02:41:31 AM
The vitriol, lies and absurd accusations thrown against Ron Paul in this thread really demonstrates how infantile and irrational democrats really are. And this is supposed to be the party of reason and logic. Laughable.
That comment really demonstrates the kneejerk, unthinking, two-dimensional world you really live (or think) in. Not a month ago, I heard a former Republican Senator dismiss Paul as "goofy," so this discussion is not at all the occasion to sneer at Democrats which you are fond to think.
And you are supposed to be the chap who will teach us all sense about "genius." Laughable.
Quote from: Greg on January 06, 2012, 06:28:23 PM
Guess who isn't getting my vote?
The unemployment rate just dropped down to 8.5%, and they are saying that next year it should be continuing to get better.
Makes me wonder what the reason for this is... is the stimulus package kicking in and just taking forever, is it policy changes?, etc.
My personal belief is that neither party has the cojones to go after the structural elements of the current unemployment problems, and address actual specifics like skill shortages, geographic issues, and globalization/outsourcing. Neither more unfocused govt spending nor giving private enterprise a free hand are going to fix these. One of the reasons we've been slow to recover from the meltdown is that companies have gotten more efficient, and have outsourced more. But the discussion on both sides have been nothing but empty rhetoric.
That's the nub: the actual solutions to the problems are political poison. Much easier to caricature the other guy ("Obamacare! It's Socialism!")
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 02:41:31 AMThe vitriol, lies and absurd accusations thrown against Ron Paul in this thread really demonstrates how infantile and irrational democrats really are.
Silly goose, one need not be a Democrat to think Ron Paul is a doofus of the first order. Just like one need not be a Democrat to be appalled at the slop that comes out of the mouths of people like Bachmann and Santorum.
By the way, care to offer an explanation of how competing currencies is beneficial, a Paul idea? James opted not to. I'm waiting for a Paul supporter/fan to show me the light.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 07, 2012, 04:56:35 AM("Obamacare! It's Socialism!")
Well, it is socialist to a degree, just like universal public education. One could argue that Social Security is, as well. A few other programs could be viewed thusly. That doesn't make them
bad things.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 02:41:31 AM
Ever heard of a little country called Iceland?
Little is indeed the keyword here. 250,000 people who are (a) ethnically and ethically homogenous, (b) mostly concentrated in two or three towns and (c) basically know each other since childhood could certainly have it the libertarian way - but I douibt that 200,000,000 with different ethnical and ethical backgrounds and spread over a whole continent can...
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2012, 06:26:05 AMbut I douibt that 200,000,000 with different ethnical and ethical backgrounds and spread over a whole continent can...
Bump up that first number by 1.
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 06:18:01 AM
Well, it is socialist to a degree, just like universal public education. One could argue that Social Security is, as well. A few other programs could be viewed thusly. That doesn't make them bad things.
Not everything public is socialist and not everything socialist is public. I know it only too well: I was born and raised in the
Socialist Republic of Romania, where Obama would have been chastized as an imperialist pig. :)
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 06:28:37 AM
Bump up that first number by 1.
300,000,000 Americans then?
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2012, 06:33:44 AM300,000,000 Americans then?
A bit more, actually. Big country.
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2012, 06:33:06 AMNot everything public is socialist and not everything socialist is public.
Perhaps, but these are Socialist programs to my way of thinking. (Hell, free, univeral public education was one of the demands in the Communist Manifesto.) That does not make them bad in and of themselves.
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2012, 06:33:06 AMObama would have been chastized as an imperialist pig.
Well, there is some evidence that at least some American presidents in the last 60-70 years have acted in a somewhat imperial manner.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 07, 2012, 03:19:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/meFjza6BpEA
Aside from the Afghanistan government failing (with the implication that it completely collapses, which it hasn't), I don't see much wrong with what he details here. For somebody who wants to avoid foreign intervention, he seems to understand the web of foreign interest quite well. More so than most of the people in the same room as him during that speech, who were voting on things they had no inkling about.
The problem is not that what Ron Paul says is not true, it's that he doesn't have a better solution, and his proposals would make things worse. We have experience with ignoring problems and letting things run their course, and that's why we sometimes decide we can't do that. There's a great deal of uncertainty about interventions, and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, but it's good to remember that the politicians that oppose foreign entanglements never explain how the world would be better if we stayed out of all conflicts. Wars would still happen, and interventions would still be necessary. The disease would be treated at a later stage, as when we decided the Taliban had to go after the WTC was hit. We neglected Afghanistan for a decade after the Soviets left. We left Saddam in place in 1991. It's proper to blame interventionists for the consequences of their policies, and so it is with oppositionists. The trouble is that the consequences of not doing something are often difficult to read, and oppositionists often switch sides like this:
Why are we bogged down in Iraq when we should be concentrating on Afghanistan?
Why are we helping the rebels in Libya when we should be helping in Syria?
What about Darfur? The way this goes is that wherever we do intervene somewhere else looks good to oppositionists, but only as an alternative. If we do intervene where they want, someplace else will start to look good to them. My view is that for temperamental reasons some people like to make the best of chosen policies and others prefer something else that they imagine would be better. That fine, I can imagine better policies, too, especially on the economy, but I try to live within the limits of what can be realized.
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2012, 06:33:06 AM
Not everything public is socialist and not everything socialist is public. I know it only too well: I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania, where Obama would have been chastized as an imperialist pig. :)
One thing I've come to realize over the past few decades is that people who come from hard socialist/Communist countries often have a distorted view of Western social democracy, seeing it as incipient socialism of the bad kind that they know all too well. Yet this has never been the case. There is no tendency on the part of America or Western Europe to emulate Stalin, Honecker or Mao. This is the kind of thinking that gave us "Austrian" economics. Fundamentally it's an antiempirical view, which is exactly why it doesn't get how social democracy works. Advanced economies are not really divided into 2 spheres, government and private. They exist but they are interwoven and how each "part" performs sensitively affects the other parts. IOW Western economies are an embarrassment to theory, so the lesson to learn is that theories should be built on successful practice. Hard socialism is built on the most wonderful theory imaginable for a world where theories magically turn into realities. It's a top down theory with the same kind of central direction as the religious models it was based on, only we have the Party instead of the Church. Oh, and have you noticed it didn't take long to get back to the Church once the Party was overthrown?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 07, 2012, 04:37:59 AM
That comment really demonstrates the kneejerk, unthinking, two-dimensional world you really live (or think) in. Not a month ago, I heard a former Republican Senator dismiss Paul as "goofy," so this discussion is not at all the occasion to sneer at Democrats which you are fond to think.
Except there are no republicans here, and not being a republican myself, i'm not particularly interested in what they have to say on the subject. Since most of the criticism directed at Ron Paul in this forum comes from democrats, its only logical for me to discuss the issue from that perspective.
Quote from: ~ Que ~ on January 07, 2012, 09:11:39 AM
Warning: I know this is a political debate and things are bound to become heated now and then.
But DON'T call each other names - no "silly him", "silly her", "infantile" or whatever.
I won't bother tinkering with posts that don't conform with this rule - I will delete them in their entirety.
Q
But will you conform to posts using terms like charlatan, or lunatic?
Quote from: James on January 07, 2012, 08:31:34 AM
Both parties & and the candidates are the same, there are no differences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCQ8NGfcCE&feature=player_embedded
Pretty much, yes. Note that i'm going to be called an extremist here for merely quoting Alan Keyes. Democrats are not as open minded as they'd like you to believe.
Those Republican candidates are no opponent for Obama. It's just a show they perform, in which they seem to believe in, and the public likes it. Can't take people serious who think these Republic candidates can actually be a political leader of the USA.
Quote from: Henk on January 07, 2012, 10:21:21 AM
It's just a show they perform, in which they seem to believe in, and the public likes it.
Isn't this the very definition of democracy? I always find it bizarre that democrats seem to think that what they believe is what's best for the public. Sounds a bit like fascism, doesn't it?
Quote from: James on January 07, 2012, 08:06:52 AMClearly you don't know a thing about Paul's positions if that's all you have to say. He's a "nut", "fruitcake", he's a "doofus". Yea VERY informed, thoughtful positions. Again, get on YouTube and check him out more in depth, and read some of his books. Open your eyes! He has no equal intellectually, and he's the most genuine & consistent choice; he's the only one speaking 'the truth' .. and he understands the system & the psychology behind-it, and what's really going down more than anybody. He understands history, civil liberties & the constitution more than anybody. He understands the economic issues & current crisis more than anybody and is the only one proposing real changes. Heck, he predicted a lot of it years ago and understands 'the heart', psychology and origins of many of the major issues that your country faces today. He gets the biggest support from troops. All the other status quo flip-floppers are for more of the same, their flimsy 'records' prove that .. the endless wars/entanglements, bigger govt, undermining civil liberties .. and ultimately more careless spending etc. If you get on YouTube alone .. you can witness first hand with video footage how Obama and the others just do not practice what they preach, the empty rhetoric, flip-flopping, horrible choices, and the hypocrisy is just sickening. They say one thing and do the opposite, none of them are for real necessary changes .. can't trust any of them, and their priorities are all messed up.
That's a pretty long response, followed by a few others. Yet I do not see
you, or Josquin, or any other Paul supporter/fan explaining his take on competing currencies. It should be quite simple to explain, especially if the esteemed Dr Paul is so cogent in his arguments. No, I see just another lament about other politicians. Replacing establishment-type figures with charlatans is not a solution, sorry.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 10:07:36 AMExcept there are no republicans here
And how did you determine this?
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
And how did you determine this?
Well, if i'm not a republican, despite being the most right-wing person on this forum, i think its safe to say there aren't many others who would qualify, don't you think?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 10:54:50 AMWell, if i'm not a republican, despite being the most right-wing person on this forum, i think its safe to say there aren't many others who would qualify, don't you think?
No, I don't think so. It appears you don't know what a Republican is.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 10:24:35 AM
Isn't this the very definition of democracy? I always find it bizarre that democrats seem to think that what they believe is what's best for the public. Sounds a bit like fascism, doesn't it?
Republicans are also democrats, but without being able to be a leader, too much involved they are with interests of business. Do democrats say they know what's best for the public? It's way too black-white thinking.
Henk
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 10:57:27 AM
It appears you don't know what a Republican is.
Right. I'm sure you know more about being a Republican then the Republican themselves, correct?
Quote from: Henk on January 07, 2012, 11:03:44 AM
Republicans are also democrats, but without being able to be a leader, too much involved they are with interests of business. D
Ho? And yet Democrats bitch all the time about business interests taking precedence over anything else in this country. Isn't that the very definition of leadership? Or am i missing something?
Quote from: Henk on January 07, 2012, 11:03:44 AMRepublicans are also democrats, but without being able to be a leader, too much involved they are with interests of business.
You should probably dig a bit deeper than the current presidential candidates. It appears that you have a typically European understanding of US politics; ie, you only know a little about current national level candidates.
Quote from: Henk on January 07, 2012, 11:03:44 AMDo democrats say they know what's best for the public?
Yes, all the time.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 11:04:00 AMRight. I'm sure you do more then the Republican themselves, correct?
I'm a lifelong Republican, that's why I'm interested in knowing how you concluded there are none here. Let me guess, none are sufficiently conservative to meet your definition.
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 11:11:56 AM
I'm a lifelong Republican, that's why I'm interested in knowing how you concluded there are none here. Let me guess, none are sufficiently conservative to meet your definition.
Pretty much, yes. I'm on the right of every republican who has been, or every conservative who has ever been in the last few decades. Like Johnathan Bowden, i believe the right, unlike the left, has severed any ties to a solid intellectual foundation because of the stigmatization of the far right after WWII. Most Republicans nowadays are afraid of endorsing real conservative values for fear of being labeled as an extremist.
That said, the reason why i am sympathetic to Ron Paul has nothing to do with my own political ideals, of which Ron Paul himself shares very little, if at all, and more on the fact he has a genuine interest in the wealth fare of America then most Republican candidates. I don't share many of his political ideas, but as an individual, he has my trust, and as a politician, he seems to be more honest then most. Its hard to ignore something like that.
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 11:11:56 AM
You should probably dig a bit deeper than the current presidential candidates. It appears that you have a typically European understanding of US politics; ie, you only know a little about current national level candidates.
I am talking about our current time. I think the republicans did good politics in the past.
But Todd, tell me, do you consider to change to Democrats side?
Henk
I wouldn't call going from Republican to Democrat much of a change at this point.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 11:41:52 AM
I wouldn't call going from Republican to Democrat much of a change at this point.
True: the US spectrum of electability, at least on a national level, runs the gamut from establishment liberals to neocons.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2012, 11:32:24 AMPretty much, yes. I'm on the right of every republican who has been, or every conservative who has ever been in the last few decades.
That makes it sound like you're close to being a Fascist, in the proper sense, especially if you think of yourself as more conservative than some of the far right people roaming around Idaho and Montana. Such thinking is not in line with Republican thinking.
Your portrayal of the Republican Party prior to WWII is more than a bit off. Some of the leading pre-war Republicans make today's batch look like far right fools. Or just fools. Robert Taft, Mr Republican himself, would likely not be conservative enough nowadays. Elihu Root, as solidly conservative a Republican as has ever held any sway in this country, held some views that differed rather markedly from, say, Bachmann or Santorum or Gingrich, let alone even farther right wing, um, thinkers. The same can be said for Henry Stimson, Wendell Willkie, William Howard Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt. And these are just some of the old-time A-listers.
Quote from: Henk on January 07, 2012, 11:34:21 AMI am talking about our current time. I think the republicans did good politics in the past.
I'm talking about the current time as well. You need to look beyond the current national candidates.
Quote from: Henk on January 07, 2012, 11:34:21 AMBut Todd, tell me, do you consider to change to Democrats side?
No. I live in a blue state chock-full of left wing crazies and Dark Green lunatics. I get a sneak peek at the less publicly welcome side of the Democrats and so-called liberals every day.
Quote from: James on January 07, 2012, 12:38:46 PMThe Republican party has lost it's way, Paul is about restoring it back to traditional values and following/defending the constitution of the founding fathers.
Right.
Links to YouTube are certainly impressive - to some, at any rate - but they are not a substitute for an explanation by one of Paul's supporters as to how competing currencies make for good policy. Again, James, I am familiar with Paul's outlook. He's not new. I am waiting for you, or another Paul supporter, to explain in different words why Paul's policies are good. You see, I'm not especially interested in revisiting his explanations - which are not new or unique to him, by the way, and I've read even more sophisticated arguments supporting some of Paul's policies written by actual economists - but rather in seeing the extent to which his supporters can actually describe his policies. Your steadfast refusal to do so offers all I need to know, really.
"Where did the money go?"
Quote from: snyprrr on January 07, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
"Where did the money go?"
On this board, that's a non-issue. It goes into CD buying.
Quote from: Todd on January 07, 2012, 10:57:27 AM
No, I don't think so. It appears you don't know what a Republican is.
Given the recent year in the house, I don't think the Republicans know what a Republican is.
Rick Santgorum has appointed himself official U. S. busybody ,with the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans
to check on whether they're having sex the way he approves of or not, or whether they're using contraceptives, which he thinks are a no-no and should be illegal.
What an arrogant, self-righteous,sanctimonious ,narrow-minded,intolerant and pompous jerk ! Who does this little twit think he is ?
He says that freedom consists of "doing what you ought to do",not doing what you want to do ". Sheesh ! Who is to say what you
"ought" to do? Sanctorum is making himself the supreme arbiter of morality and virtue in America , and if your sex life isn't what he wants it to be, he wants the government to stick its slimy nose into your PRIVATE LIFE !
And this sack of excrement has the nerve to be calling for "freedom" and "limited government!" This is "lmited government?"
Unbelievable ! In fact, what Sactimonioustorum wants is freedom for the governmetn to have unlimited power to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, as well as to police women's reproductive organs .
He wants "freedom", but not for Americans who happen to be gay ! How can any intelligent,thinking person vote for such an arrogant, nosy little schmuck ?
Quote from: Superhorn on January 08, 2012, 07:38:33 AM
He wants "freedom", but not for Americans who happen to be gay ! How can any intelligent,thinking person vote for such an arrogant, nosy little schmuck?
Don't hold back: tell us what you really feel.
Quote from: Superhorn on January 08, 2012, 07:38:33 AM
Rick Santgorum has appointed himself official U. S. busybody ,with the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans
to check on whether they're having sex the way he approves of or not, or whether they're using contraceptives, which he thinks are a no-no and should be illegal.
What an arrogant, self-righteous,sanctimonious ,narrow-minded,intolerant and pompous jerk ! Who does this little twit think he is ?
He says that freedom consists of "doing what you ought to do",not doing what you want to do ". Sheesh ! Who is to say what you
"ought" to do? Sanctorum is making himself the supreme arbiter of morality and virtue in America , and if your sex life isn't what he wants it to be, he wants the government to stick its slimy nose into your PRIVATE LIFE !
And this sack of excrement has the nerve to be calling for "freedom" and "limited government!" This is "lmited government?"
Unbelievable ! In fact, what Sactimonioustorum wants is freedom for the governmetn to have unlimited power to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, as well as to police women's reproductive organs .
He wants "freedom", but not for Americans who happen to be gay ! How can any intelligent,thinking person vote for such an arrogant, nosy little schmuck ?
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't always equate to big or small government. Social Conservatives are no different, in my book, then progressives in their desire to use government to enforce some social norm.
I also find it ironic that the "anti-government spending" people often defend any program for defense, as that doesn't seem to count as government spending.
Jno Capehart on Huntsman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/back-to-the-future-with-jon-huntsman-and-service-to-country/2011/03/04/gIQAdfZGkP_blog.html)
"Who had the worst week in Washington? Michele Bachmann." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-michele-bachmann/2012/01/05/gIQAPZlxeP_story.html)
Quote from: James on January 07, 2012, 03:23:03 PMGoogle Todd
I didn't find a lot on Paul when googling 'Todd'. I found nothing on Paul, as a matter of fact.
It's good to see that you are so enamored of YouTube, but it doesn't address the fact that you still refuse to even try to explain Paul's policies. But let's cut through all of this garbage, shall we. Let's take a look at some of Paul's stated policy goals:
1.) Abolish the Fed.
2.) Return to the gold standard.
3.) Abolish the IRS.
4.) Shut down five government agencies in year one of his presidency.
5.) Layoff 10% of government. To start.
6.) End automatic citizenship for people
born in the US if the parents are immigrants.
Paul is a man of the 19th Century. So much so, in fact, that his new slogan should be McKinley 2012. (Except that McKinley would never have dreamt of going after the 14th Amendment.) Alas, for him, there is no modern day Mark Hanna or Elihu Root for him to rely on. Well, maybe one of the Kochs could take the role of Hanna. Ron Paul is a charlatan, plain and simple.
And you know what, he's actually at least somewhat realistic, and certainly more so than you are. He admitted in an interview in Iowa that he didn't expect to win. But then he pointed out that isn't even his goal. He wants to influence policy. Maybe even be a kingmaker. But he won't. If Romney or any other candidate has to cut a deal with him for delegates, a deal will be cut, and then Paul and his acolytes will be thrown under the bus, and there will be no significant consequences, just as it should be. Ron Paul is a sideshow.
Now all Romney has to do is shut down the horrifying Santorum and then clinch the nomination. (I
really hope that Santorum does not get the VP nod.) Romney is hardly a dream candidate, and he faces a pretty good shot at losing, but he's head and shoulders above everyone else on the Republican side right now, Jon Huntsman excepted. That so many Republicans can't see just how awful many of the candidates are is perhaps the most troubling part of the whole process.
As an aside, it will be enjoyable to watch the supposedly sophisticated, tolerant 'liberals' start assulting Mormonism if Romney wins the nomination. We can show the world how far we've come in terms of religious tolerance.
QuoteLOSERS
* Ron Paul: The Texas Republican Congressman got plenty of time to talk in each of the debates. But that was the problem. Paul proved — again — that he really is off on an island in this race. His views are simply nowhere near the mainstream of the Republican party. Like, not even in the same zip code.
That's all and well good if you are already a devoted Paulite — RON PAUL — but less good if you want Paul to actually be the GOP's nominee in 2012.
RTWT here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/new-hampshire-gop-debates-winners-and-losers/2012/01/08/gIQA8efGjP_blog.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 09, 2012, 07:10:52 AM
RTWT here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/new-hampshire-gop-debates-winners-and-losers/2012/01/08/gIQA8efGjP_blog.html)
Asked what that would be doing on Saturday night if they weren't debating? "....Gingrich would be watching the "college basketball championship" and then corrected himself to say the "football" game. Romney went along with that answer as did Santorum. The problem? The national championship football game is Monday night."
;D :D ;D Wow...and they pass themselves off as just normal Joes, men of the people, not like those elite liberals ::)
Sarge
Pardon me, but do you have some Grey Poupon?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 09, 2012, 07:20:58 AMWow...and they pass themselves off as just normal Joes
I've always thought of Romney as an average Joe. I mean, he has to replace his $12 million beach home with a new, bigger one. Who hasn't been there?
Quote from: Todd on January 09, 2012, 07:23:03 AM
I've always thought of Romney as an average Joe. I mean, he has to replace his $12 million beach home with a new, bigger one. Who hasn't been there?
I hate when that happens. I have one just an hour away at the beach, and I have to replace it almost every year.
It's always something- if it's not a hurricane, it's poor craftsmanship by those lazy Mexican workers. Don't they understand that when I'm there, being served $15,000 bottles of wine by my servants, everything else needs to be PERFECT as well? I mean, why be almost perfect, when you can be perfect?
And no, it's not true that I taser them when the weather is not to my liking... wait, that is the socially correct answer, right? Sorry, I sometimes get confused...
Quote from: James on January 09, 2012, 08:05:49 AMhe's certainly the real deal
What does this even mean? Real deal in what? Certainly not serious politics. Certainly not serious economics. Tell me, where is the support from the Chicago school for your preferred charlatan? Has Robert Lucas come out and said that Paul is the man, for instance?
By the way, the 'leading Austrian economists' are all long dead, and one of the them, Joseph Schumpeter, concluded that Socialism would ultimately triumph in democracies. You should really pick up a book and read rather than rely on YouTube, and you should at least make an effort to know what the competing ideas in economics are today. Tell me - no, tell all of us - what are you views on NGDP targeting?
Paul being called the real deal has me wondering how long it will be before someone advises the prospective candidate that those aren't pillows . . . .
Quote from: James on January 09, 2012, 08:34:50 AMthe Austrian School isn't long dead.
It pretty much is. Its most sophisticated proponents are long dead. Ron Paul is not among the most sophisticated proponents. I know much can be learned from history. That's why I read it regularly, and that's why economic history was one of my areas of specialization when I studied economics.
At this point, you are merely rambling. Going on about "heart & psychology" (and you have mentioned "heart" at least twice now) shows that your knowledge on the subject is spent. That is why you do not explain competing currencies; that is why you cannot answer where Chicago economists stand on Ron Paul's economic policies; that is why you cannot offer an opinion on NGDP targeting. You don't know what it is, and you can't offer an opinion until Dr Paul chimes in.
So, one more time, Ron Paul is a charlatan with 19th Century views (at best), who cannot win, and who knows he cannot win. You're backing a loser.
I fear the damage is done: now I may never hear of Ron Paul without thinking of curtain rings . . . .
Oooh, the gift that keeps on giving:QuoteRomney: 'I like being able to fire people who provide services to me'
Speech comes a day after GOP candidate says he had personally feared losing his job.
RTWT here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-sees-need-to-be-able-to-fire-service-providers/2012/01/09/gIQAF18alP_blog.html?hpid=z1)
Quote from: Todd on January 09, 2012, 08:54:19 AMIt pretty much is. Its most sophisticated proponents are long dead. Ron Paul is not among the most sophisticated proponents. I know much can be learned from history. That's why I read it regularly, and that's why economic history was one of my areas of specialization when I studied economics.
At this point, you are merely rambling. Going on about "heart & psychology" (and you have mentioned "heart" at least twice now) shows that your knowledge on the subject is spent. That is why you do not explain competing currencies; that is why you cannot answer where Chicago economists stand on Ron Paul's economic policies; that is why you cannot offer an opinion on NGDP targeting. You don't know what it is, and you can't offer an opinion until Dr Paul chimes in.
So, one more time, Ron Paul is a charlatan with 19th Century views (at best), who cannot win, and who knows he cannot win. You're backing a loser.
Strangely appropriate here:Paul supporters unique in steadfast devotion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-ron-paul-convert-questions-how-to-play-a-role-in-a-future-he-sees-as-bleak/2012/01/09/gIQA964nlP_story.html?hpid=z2)
The strange thing about U.S. american candidates is, in a way they always look like Hollywood actors. Sometimes I don't understand the mentality of our amerian friends with their obsession for confetti :D I remember once I was in a Kibbutz in Israel and there were U.S. visitors, who all sat down on the meadow. The security officer of the Kibbutz was to be introduced by the visitors front man, a kind of clown. Which went like this:
Front clown: "Naaaaaaoooooooooow.."
Crowd: ***applause***
Front clown: "this is Ehuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddd...."
Crowd: *yodl* *whistle* *clap clap* *applause*
Clown: "cooooooooooouuuuuuhhhhhäääään!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Crowd: *appplause****
I thought: "Eek! Aliens!?!" Honestly. Why did they make a biiiiig show about... nothing?
So my question is: In US american universities, does the professor only speak after a ton of confetti has been thrown?
Asks: A european :D
So, maybe Todd can help me out...
listening to NPR, and they say John Huntsman (is that his name?) has a "creative" plan to help the economy. From what I heard, it sounds like it amounted to punishing the banks for having too much power? (and as a side note- they added limiting the banks' power doesn't hurt).
I'm wondering... hasn't pretty much everyone thought of that before? But I mean this in a good way- let the wounds heal and make sure it doesn't happen again by doing this. Why hasn't this already been done? Isn't this the first thought that comes to mind or am I missing something? ???
Quote from: James on January 09, 2012, 10:22:54 AMI simply disagree. So who are you voting for with your heart and conscious?
'Simply' is definitely the right word.
I don't vote with my "heart". I also don't vote with my "conscious". (I assume you mean conscience, but one can never be sure.) I vote for the candidate best suited to do the job, and here the job is to defeat Obama. Of the choices before the public, Romney is the best choice. Ultimately, my vote won't matter. By the time my state holds a primary, the candidate will be known. And since I live in a blue state, my vote in the general election doesn't matter. Obama will carry my state. That written, if someone like Paul or Santorum were to somehow win the nomination, there's no chance that I'd vote for the Republican candidate.
Quote from: Greg on January 09, 2012, 12:58:47 PMand they say John Huntsman (is that his name?) has a "creative" plan to help the economy.
I'm not familiar with Huntsman's latest ideas. Given his 0% probability of being the nominee, I choose not to follow him much. His web-site, and what he has been running on, mostly focuses on rejiggering the tax code, rolling back Obama's health care plan (whatever, precisely, that means), less regulation, energy independence (Ha ha), and enhanced trade (always good). How some of these items will help job growth is a bit nebulous. I know he's mentioned the 'too big too fail' issue with respect to banks before, and if that's what he and they are referring to, I must say that I agree. It's decidedly out of fashion in Republican circles, but I'd like to see either more stringent regulation of banks than the financial reforms that passed offer, or better yet, a split between commercial and investment banking like existed in this country from FDR through Clinton. In addition, if a bank, or any financial institution, presents systemic risk, it ought to be closely examined, and possibly broken up. I don't think Huntsman would go that far, at least publicly, but it would seem he's concerned about similar issues. I'm not sure how dealing with banking will create a lot of jobs, though.
As to whether everyone thought of a policy prescription before, the answer is yes. There's really not too much new under the sun.
I think, in their words, it was "to impose a penalty on banks if they acquire enough power to damage the economy with loans that don't work out" or something like that (don't remember 100%, as I was driving).
I don't think the point of it would be creating jobs, but to prevent all of this from happening again, hopefully. Thanks for the info, Todd. 8)
Quote from: Greg on January 09, 2012, 01:25:54 PMI think, in their words, it was "to impose a penalty on banks if they acquire enough power to damage the economy with loans that don't work out" or something like that (don't remember 100%, as I was driving).
Oh, well, then all that is needed is to increase capital requirements for banks. Easy enough. Start by implementing Basel 2.5 and III, as the Fed largely is and will, and for more than banks, and then impose stricter standards if needed. Of course, it's never that easy politically.
Quote from: Todd on January 09, 2012, 01:33:10 PM
Oh, well, then all that is needed is to increase capital requirements for banks. Easy enough. Start by implementing Basel III, as the Fed largely is, and for more than banks, and then impose stricter standards if needed. Of course, it's never that easy politically.
So do you think the reason why this hasn't been done yet is because of political reasons (or that this is just a restriction which hasn't been implemented so far)?
Quote from: Greg on January 09, 2012, 01:40:26 PMSo do you think the reason why this hasn't been done yet is because of political reasons (or that this is just a restriction which hasn't been implemented so far)?
Further regulation is always contested by those being regulated, and rightly so. It's always political. Financial reform is a reality now, between Dodd Frank and Basel 2.5 and III, and the former was surprisingly hard to get through, and parts are watered down. You'd think a major meltdown and Obama becoming president with the Democrats controlling Congress would have resulted in something even more substantive, but between Obama's weak leadership, and the fact that financial firms donate very generously to Dems, it was bound to be watered down. (Obama is no FDR, that's for sure.) Oh, wait, I forgot, any and all legislative failures of the Obama Administration are the Republicans' fault. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Todd on January 09, 2012, 01:58:44 PM
You'd think a major meltdown and Obama becoming president with the Democrats controlling Congress would have resulted in something even more substantive, but between Obama's weak leadership, and the fact that financial firms donate very generously to Dems, it was bound to be watered down.
Ugh... :-X :-\
Quote from: James on January 09, 2012, 03:44:38 PMWith the glaring exception of Ron Paul all the horses in this race are all the same and they are all owned by the same mafia
You keep on tilting at windmills.
I like what James said, all of these Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are bought and paid for by the media. They're nothing in the world but a bunch of talking plastic people. None of them have any idea of what to do. They're as clueless as Obama. It also didn't help our country that we had 8 years of George W. Bush. Who, IMHO, was one of the dumbest presidents this country has ever elected. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that makes any kind of sense. Santorum is a big government spender who claims to have conservative values, but takes a ton of money from lobbyists. Mitt Romney is, as James said, a flip-flopper (reminds me of Republican version of John Kerry) and he simply doesn't have a shot in hell against Obama. Newt Gingrich is just a thief and liar who doesn't have any kind of common sense whatsoever. That pretty covers the Republican nominees. Oh, I knew I forgot Rick Perry, oh wait minute...no I didn't because he never had a shot anyway.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 09, 2012, 06:54:38 PMNone of them have any idea of what to do.
You've described Ron Paul perfectly.
Quote from: Todd on January 09, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
You've described Ron Paul perfectly.
You don't think Ron Paul has any good ideas, Todd?
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 09, 2012, 07:11:37 PM
You don't think Ron Paul has any good ideas, Todd?
Setting the WayBAC machine for 1842 isn't really practical, is it? ; )
And how did Dixville Notch break, you ask? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/romney-huntsman-tied-at-22-in-new-hampshires-first-vote/2012/01/09/gIQANslKnP_story.html)
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 09, 2012, 07:11:37 PMYou don't think Ron Paul has any good ideas, Todd?
I think I've made that clear in my prior posts. He has no good ideas. He's a man of the 19th Century and a charlatan.
I've previously asked Paul supporters to explain how competing currencies are a good idea and would benefit the economy. None of his supporters offered an explanation. To that request I will add the following: Explain how returning to the gold standard - or any other "hard money" arrangement (ie, bimetallism, a most Bryanesque policy) - would improve the economy or help the Average Joe. Of particular interest to me is how the resultant deflation will benefit ordinary people, and how the increased relative debt burden would help anyone other than creditors.
Quote from: Todd on January 10, 2012, 06:47:35 AM
I think I've made that clear in my prior posts. He has no good ideas. He's a man of the 19th Century and a charlatan.
I've previously asked Paul supporters to explain how competing currencies are a good idea and would benefit the economy. None of his supporters offered an explanation. To that request I will add the following: Explain how returning to the gold standard - or any other "hard money" arrangement (ie, bimetallism, a most Bryanesque policy) - would improve the economy or help the Average Joe. Of particular interest to me is how the resultant deflation will benefit ordinary people, and how the increased relative debt burden would help anyone other than creditors.
I don't know much about Ron Paul or what his ideas are. I was really just reacting to his responses in the Republican debates which seemed pretty level-headed compared to the other candidates.
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 07:17:04 AM2 can play this game .. why is Romney "the best choice" with regards to the economic situation.
Because he is a good old-fashioned flip-flopper, duh. ::) :D
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 07:17:04 AM.. this is one thing he wants to do, he wants to make this transition .. but there is LOTS ELSE he talks about. Is he wrong on everything else? Like for instance following the constitution, protecting civil liberties, auditing Fed (more govt transparency), voting against tax increases, reducing all the govt waste, or his anti-war stance?
2 can play this game .. why is Romney "the best choice" with regards to the economic situation.
Correct, Paul wants to do a lot of things. Pretty much all of them bad. (I listed six of them previously.) Now, let's look at your list.
* Following the Constitution. Sounds nice. Appeals to lots of people. Unfortunately, it's a hollow statement. See below.
* Protecting civil liberties. Again, nice sounding. Oh, wait, Paul has come out for disallowing citizenship for people born in this country if the parents are immigrants not to his liking. Shucks, that neither follows the Constitution (14th Amendment), federal law, or any plausible definition of civil liberties. And what was his stance on abortion again? Wait, that's a different issue, right?
* Auditing the Fed. Yes, yes, the evil Fed. It already has twice yearly hearing with Congress, and will start publishing the voting records of all members at FOMC meetings. Transparency is increasing, and will continue to do so, but it is essential to remember that the Fed was set up to be as independent as possible from electoral politics. (Hence the long terms for the governors.) Nothing is more frightful than monetary policy dictated by bi-annual elections.
* Voting against tax increases. Huh? Sometimes they may be needed. Are you seriously saying that taxes should never be raised? If so, you're flat-out wrong.
* Reducing all government waste. Huh? When did he accomplish this? If he hasn't, how would he do so? And I suppose you will also tell us that all of the money he brought back to his district was efficiently deployed. It's another nice sounding but hollow argument.
* Anti-war stance. This is probably his most significant and useful stance. Sometimes, though, war may be necessary to stave off even bigger calamities or problems. Take the two Gulf Wars. The first was fully justified to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon that would have been able to use the oil markets to extract all manner of concessions from the wealthy world. (I concede it would be nice if oil was not so critical as to lead to war, but we aren't there yet, and more drilling in the US, while a decidedly good idea, will not get us to that point.) The second was ill thought out, poorly executed, and could have been avoided. Being staunchly anti-war sure sounds nice, but do remember there were staunch anti-war politicians while the Nazis were marching across Europe slaughtering millions. That's not to say that there is anything like a Nazi threat today, because there isn't, but rather to illustrate that sometimes pacifism ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Now, to Romney, and why he is better. His flip-flopping is actually part of the reason. Rather than establishing extreme or goofy positions like Paul, he has always changed direction with the political winds. Conditions change. Political responses should as well, at least some of the time. He was also a governor of a state where the Democrats controlled the legislature. He can work with the opposition party. This is crucial. He's a policy guy. He loves details. Hell, I haven't read all of his policy positions, and I'll bet no one else here has either, given how lengthy they are. He works with people who've been around, like Glenn Hubbard (perhaps you like him, perhaps you don't – I mean, he worked with Bush, so he must be evil), but he does not work with crackpots. He's not out to change the world. Given the economic and fiscal situations facing the country, we need less of a visionary, and more of a policy guy. Romney is not my ideal candidate, but compared to the doofus Ron Paul, he's downright great.
Part of the problem with the Republican primaries is that the candidates either have no clue about economics or are forced into ridiculous positions because of buffoons like Grover Norquist and other far right figures or groups. The US economy needs greater employment in the short to medium term – which means more demand – and sane fiscal policies in the long term. This does not mean a balanced budget amendment and iron-clad promises to never, ever, ever raise taxes again, nor does it mean eliminating government programs
en masse. Alas, many Republicans don't get this, or at least they don't profess to publicly. And then there are fruitcakes like Paul who offer "solutions" that would make things much worse.
Again, Paul has no chance of winning, and he knows it. He would deny that he's a charlatan. But he is.
Now, Ron Paul supporters, how are competing currencies economically valuable, and how does reverting to the gold standard help the average American?
Now it's time for one of my crazy ideas: Gerrymandering needs to be squashed. This is one of the biggest long-term political problems facing this country. It has created a situation where districts are too safe and thus more extreme elements of both parties start driving their respective parties to far too the right and left. Hell, there are districts, both Republican and Democratic, where the winner gets 80, 90, or even 95% of the vote. (Check the last several election results by district.) Even dictators in Central Asia and the Middle East don't skew things so much. Such electoral safety is bad and ultimately undemocratic. A side benefit would be fewer nutjobs like Paul holding office.
Quote from: Todd on January 10, 2012, 08:36:14 AM
Now, Ron Paul supporters, how are competing currencies economically valuable[...]?
I don't know enough about his policies, nor am I a supporter, so don't know exactly what he proposes here, but it would be nice to see if this can be resolved if nobody else is picking it up:
Wouldn't pre-Euro currency Europe work in the same way as a US with competing currencies? Or wouldn't individual states have enough power to regulate them as properly as individual countries under his proposals? I assume that he is going for some Darwinian winners and losers kind of deal, with the losers adapting to fill gaps in the wider requirements? It sounds kind of like the late Deutschmark (or current Euro) vs. weaker currencies in the south and east of Europe - they have less buying power, but more selling power.
I am not sure why such a change would be seen as good by Paul, but also don't know why it would be considered obviously bad either.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 10, 2012, 09:06:19 AMI don't know enough about his policies
The scenario you describe is bad enough, but Paul advocates allowing banks (and other financial institutions?) to issue their own currency.
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 07:17:04 AM
reducing all the govt waste
That I would like to see, but it is not clear how. If it were easy enough, it would be done already!
One of the problems is that some Govt waste creates jobs, and many large defense programs spread the work out over all 50 states. This is not efficiency, but every congressman and Senator that votes against a program is jeopardizing their reelection. I'm not saying their isn't waste-- far from, but much of this talk about slashing the govt doesn't address the NEW unemployment that would result. It will take time for the private sector to create the new positions= particularity those that can be filled more efficiently by outsourcing abroad. At least most government contracts require work to be done by US Citizens. There is no guarantee that a private company would opt to employ citizens if they could save $$ farming the work abroad.
"Letting the states handle it" is not promise of greater efficiency-- I've worked with state governments, and typically find them less motivated and accountable than the Fed (although there are some wonderful exceptions I've encountered) ,A sking 50 different organizations, weakly funded, to provide the same capability on their own can result in reinventing 49 wheels.
And the private sector? I am totally behind stimulating it, and encouraging innovation-- but the result of most of our degregulation sprees have been bailouts. Prior to the recent meltdown, check out the S&L crisis in the 80s. Private businesses are out to make money-- but this doesn't mean their decisions will be for the long term public good.
I don't see any of these approaches alone working-- there will always need to be a balance and tension
I don't think that any simple, idealistic dogma will address a complicated issue that needs to be resolved in stages, and smaller, calculated steps. But neither party can offer a realistic, phased approach without risking loss of votes and alienating the special interests which make it impossible for either party (or both in concert) to address ALL of the contributing issues in a systematic fashion.
And, on tax increases-- assuming that lower taxes will solve, but itself, the current economic puzzle seems to ignore what has been going on over the last two decades. (Techincally, with our current tax rates, we should be growing? ANd why did the economy grow under Clinton? And, for the other side of the fence, why doesn't Obama let the tax cuts expire? He's more concerned with getting elected than addressing the deficit. ) Once again, a very simplistic model doesn't solve problems, but it is good to get votes.
I would say, in Paul's favor, that he may have more integrity to his beliefs (and Romney is on the opposite end of the specturem) , but that still doesn't mean his beliefs are going to fix anything. If a person is sincere about something that won't work, does that make it better?
The sad news is we deserve exactly what we get from both parties-- we want to be lied to, and be told simple fairy tale good/even stories, and don't want to have to think hard, or challenge our existing assumptions.
Quote from: Todd on January 10, 2012, 09:15:36 AM
The scenario you describe is bad enough, but Paul advocates allowing banks (and other financial institutions?) to issue their own currency.
Question to the Paulies: This is an economic benefit how, exactly?
Quote from: Todd on January 10, 2012, 09:15:36 AM
The scenario you describe is bad enough, but Paul advocates allowing banks (and other financial institutions?) to issue their own currency.
Oh, I see, danke. That would seem to have so much opportunity for fraud and incompetence that it would require a big government just to compensate all the people ruined by it.
I don't even know what a guy is thinking who wants banks to operate their own currency. Maybe he's thinking something like, You know what the problem with the banks is? Their operations right now are just too efficient. Let's put the brakes on that efficiency by having them open their own proprietary currency boards.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 10, 2012, 10:42:35 AMI don't even know what a guy is thinking who wants banks to operate their own currency.
The below is straight from the ronpaul.com. I can't say if it is "legitimate," but then given how he managed his newsletter in the 90s, could Dr Paul?
"Ron Paul believes that the first step towards monetary freedom is to allow open competition in currencies. Once gold and silver are allowed as legal tender and can be sold without sales tax, everyone can use them to store their wealth and to pay for the things they want to buy. The Federal Reserve will finally have a very compelling motivation to stay honest and maintain the value of the dollar because if they don't, they will simply lose all their customers."
You see, Karl, it will force the Fed to stay honest. And by the same token (presumably a gold token), it would force all other players to stay honest. If gold or metal were used allowed as legal tender, no one would
ever debase the gold and silver they posses. Such a thing is unthinkable, and without historic precedent.
Of course, when one thinks of the gold standard, that seems a bit too new-fangled. Why not use big stone slabs as money? It has been used as money before. It's much harder to debase big stone slabs.
I'm for going back to bricks of tea for currency.
Quote"... Once gold and silver are allowed as legal tender and can be sold without sales tax, everyone can use them to store their wealth and to pay for the things they want to buy."
Starting with a safe and alarm system. Americans won't really be economically free until each home is a miniature Fort Knox!
Oh, and the esteemed Dr Paul is all in favor of the new "digital" currencies, like Bitcoin. Another brilliant idea!
I want to watch Goldfinger again before making a decision w/r/t Dr Paul.
Quote from: Dowder on January 10, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
. . . Honestly, he strikes me as unprepared.
And yet, (a) he's a Congressman (and how proud are his supporters of his record of Congressional accomplishment?) and (b) it isn't the first time he has run for the Republican Party presidential nomination. If he's not prepared now . . . . Rick Perry, now he's got an excuse not to be prepared. Congressman Paul? None, really.
Quote from: Dowder on January 10, 2012, 11:10:51 AMRead my post a page back or two; or if you did just give me a re-post on it, please.
I missed your original post. There are some little problems with Paul's prescriptions. The first is that reverting to a so-called "hard money" - ie, gold and silver backed money - would reduce the money supply and result in deflation. This would be bad for anyone who has any debt and earns wages, which would fall. It would be good for creditors, assuming that contracts are enforced, which I'm certain Paul would support. Allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender would result in debasing of said gold and silver, rather reducing the efficacy of Paul's plan. And that's before the good money (ie, the hard money) disappeared, to be hoarded by those with the means to buy it up. Allowing private issuance of money based on precious metals, or anything else, would cause all manner of money mischief. How would one know, for instance, that Bank X (or Currency Issuer X) really had said gold or silver? That would require independent verification. That would drive up transaction costs. That would make finance less efficient. And it still wouldn't eliminate fraud. Some type of overriding authority - a central bank, perhaps - would still be needed to monitor currency.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where someone explained how Paul's policies helped average Americans.
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 11:09:27 AMHe's the only one that really knows what is going on with great clarity and proposes substantial solutions. He's a real patriot.
Wow, this is some heavy duty propaganda. Looks like you're writing about Kim Jong-un.
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 11:24:41 AMEven if that is how you perceive him 'on the surface' .. you'd probably agree that that is a highly superficial way of looking at things and we must to look past that and really listen & think about the message being delivered.
I agree.
(http://gummag.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/06paul-small.jpg?w=500&h=646)
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 09:27:58 AM
Abolish political parties completely
How can it be done, pray tell?
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 11:09:27 AM
"One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government." Ron Paul
Did they intend a nation where people could not be owned and sold as slaves?
Moral argument from doctrine is generally bunk.
Quote from: James on January 10, 2012, 11:09:27 AM
Paul has a reputation of voting against bigger govt, more spending and higher taxes. And he's served 12 terms or something like that. He's the only one that really knows what is going on with great clarity and proposes substantial solutions. He's a real patriot.
"One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government." Ron Paul
I'll definitely give him credit for voting with this beliefs-- and I think I have already in a couple posts her
e. But Voting against something is different than having a viable solution, and also a transition plan to help make sure that a shift to more private sector is done without causing undue damage, and provide the "trickle down" effect that is often mentioned, but seldom demonstrated. This notion that any change needs to be both sweeping and ideological didn't do Obama much good-- and most of the other Republican candidates are also aiming for ideology as well. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have an insincere chameleon (guess who) if they could convince me they are competent.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 10, 2012, 11:06:22 AM
I want to watch Goldfinger again before making a decision w/r/t Dr Paul.
Uh-oh-- I have an indelible image of Ron Paul in a bikini sprayed with gold paint. I need to get back on my meds
(http://sassisamblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Kelly_Osbourne_Goldfinger_03.jpg)
Quote from: Dowder on January 11, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
Certainly; I wish more people would look deeper then the surface and focus on the ideas. A lot of people are, which is why Ron Paul is getting a lot more votes this time around. But....I'm not naive when it comes to elections, either. A lot of people get convinced--and ultimately vote--for the politician who can ariculate his platform (or himself!) the most cogently and persuasively. I think our current Prez did a masterful job at that his last campaign around.
The problem with Paul is that his attention-grabbing, highly-publicised (at least online) hooks made me interested in his policies, but "looking beneath the surface" revealed him to be an increasingly poor-looking option. A mass of good ideas don't outweigh an equal amount of terrible ones.
If he was just a standard, measured politician coupled with some good ideas he would've possibly even been president by now. But he has crazy stuff buried towards the bottom of his manifesto, and from being exposed to a lot of viral campaigning for him online, his supporters tend not to be keen to reveal these things, or even mention them unless they are directly questioned about them - which is curiously exactly like the standard politicial operators work as well. I don't see any greater levels of transparency with his campaigning.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 11, 2012, 03:18:56 AM
The problem with Paul is that his attention-grabbing, highly-publicised (at least online) hooks made me interested in his policies, but "looking beneath the surface" revealed him to be an increasingly poor-looking option.
Aye, he has certainly got the branding strategy down pat.
Romney is (quite naturally) playing up the "historic" aspect to his having edged to the top in both Iowa (with all its quirks) and New Hampshire (a state neighboring the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which he served as Governor — so, heavy name-recognition advantage).
But of course, in spite of his advantages, he didn't break to 40% (sure, fractious field, and all). So . . . there's been no Republican presidential nominee who did not win either Iowa or New Hampshire. History might be made there, too ; )
As sager souls than I have observed, at this point all of, what, two dozen delegates have been decided? So the race ain't nearly over. South Carolina and Florida remain entertaining contests to watch . . . .
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 03:38:35 AM
Paul isn't empty rhetoric tho and his record backs that up; he means & does what he says .. the others don't, so placing trust (voting) for insincere people who don't really have core principles, answers or truly believe in anything .. isn't the way to go. Picking Romney will only lead to more of the same. It's a wasted vote. I said the same about Obama when he initially ran, so picking him again will be more of the same.
I agree, he seems to be consistently right in a lot of his predictions, but many of his policies suggested as solutions I don't agree with. Compared to Paul, the ones who backtrack or don't have a clue what is happening are no worse prospects for leadership, as their solutions while half-hearted are realistic and less bizarre.
I would prefer something in the middle of both, though.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 11, 2012, 04:00:17 AMSo the race ain't nearly over.
Not yet, but if Romney wins a couple more primaries, it will be. But it could be Huntsman's turn next. He hasn't been the main anti-Romney guy yet. That written, rich donors soon have to think about which Super PACs to fund to take on Obama. Decisions, decisions.
QuotePaul isn't empty rhetoric tho and his record backs that up.
His record backs up his cockamamie ideas, yes. His record also attests to his utter failure as a team player. So: not empty rhetoric, but an empty portfolio.
Not that that will discourage them what have taken the Kool-Aid™
Quote from: karlhenning on January 11, 2012, 06:48:25 AMSo: not empty rhetoric, but an empty portfolio.
What, you're not impressed with a 0.2% legislation success rate?
Well, I certainly am. I'm not sure that the Paulies appreciate how unfavorable that impression is.
2 basis points . . . is this any way to run a country? ; )
Quote from: karlhenning on January 11, 2012, 06:53:46 AM2 basis points . . . is this any way to run a country? ; )
This is no doubt a badge of honor to the Paulies.
You see! He's not part of "The Establishment"! It adds credibility in their minds, the inhabitants of Crazy World.
Yes, dysfunctional & proud!
Quote from: Stephen StrombergRon Paul's eyes nearly popped from their sockets when he said of himself and his supporters, "We are DANGEROUS." He meant, of course, "to the status quo," but it's a problem when those outside your diehard fan club are actually terrified.
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 07:16:20 AMI don't think being a strict constitutionalist is such a cockamamie idea
Uh-oh, now the Constitution is being brought into it. Tell us, James, from where in the Constitution did Thomas Jefferson derive the power to negotiate and Congress derive the power to fund the Louisiana Purchase? Why even the red sage himself supposedly had misgivings, and unless you have a different version of the Constitution than I do, there is no express power to acquire territory by treaty. Should we give it back? (And that rascally Jefferson sent Marines to Tripoli without so much as a Declaration of War, too, showing an early penchant for naughtiness.)
Also, do you favor repealing
Marbury v Madison?
Just want to get a feel for how strictly you interpret the Constitution.
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 08:16:23 AMTodd let's focus on the candidates and what they actually stand-for .. you've already told us how you vote and why Romney is "the best choice".
In other words, you can't answer. Got it.
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 09:01:11 AMBottomline, Romney. Got it.
That's good, glad to see you've come around.
Now, please, I beseech you, educate all on this forum on strict constitutionalism, especially if it means we'd have to give back a third of the lower 48 and possibly revisit various legal precedents.
Quote from: Todd on January 11, 2012, 09:26:32 AM
. . . especially if it means we'd have to give back a third of the lower 48 and possibly revisit various legal precedents.
I think we've just solved France's capital reserves crisis.
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 09:55:52 AMTodd .. I'm not interested in your games; .. you have told us how you vote and why Romney is the best choice .. that's the bottomline.
Does this mean you shan't be shedding any light on Constitutional questions?
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 10:31:01 AM
Todd .. just curious, who did you vote for last time?
I'm not sure but if Romney wins the Republican nomination then you can best believe he'll vote for Mitt "Flip A Coin" Romney. :D
Quote from: James on January 11, 2012, 10:31:01 AMTodd .. just curious, who did you vote for last time?
I didn't cast a vote for president last time.
Now, where's your answer on matters constitutional?
Quote from: Todd on January 11, 2012, 07:48:55 AM
Uh-oh, now the Constitution is being brought into it. Tell us, James, from where in the Constitution did Thomas Jefferson derive the power to negotiate and Congress derive the power to fund the Louisiana Purchase? Why even the red sage himself supposedly had misgivings, and unless you have a different version of the Constitution than I do, there is no express power to acquire territory by treaty. Should we give it back? (And that rascally Jefferson sent Marines to Tripoli without so much as a Declaration of War, too, showing an early penchant for naughtiness.)
Also, do you favor repealing Marbury v Madison?
Just want to get a feel for how strictly you interpret the Constitution.
Didn't the Constitution also replace the Articles of Confederation which allowed states to make their own currency? The aim was to discourage that practice. (athough, it would allow states to issue currency that was based on a Gold or Silver standard...)
Quote from: Dowder on January 12, 2012, 01:45:04 AM
Fair enough, but I'm interested in seeing which ideas you like and which you think are crazy.
So far from what I've picked up, I would count things like his casual dismissal of climate change being an immediate problem (as though when it had become a problem it could then be "worked on"). This is less of an issue when a standard Republican says it, but when Paul does, it comes along with the knowledge that he will slash research funding across all sciences, something which can't just have money thrown at it when needed and produce results, it requires a stable support base over many years. A problem like this cannot be solved by self-interest, it requires regulation. Ditto environmental regulation - I am not sure how something which affects wider biospheres can work when neighbouring states have different policies.
His de-regulation extending to things like removing mandatory immunisation for children, which could see the resurgence of diseases on the decline. While it's nice to think that people, if the curtains are lifted from their eyes, will suddenly begin to make the correct choices, various hysterias indicate the opposite. Things like this aren't purely a matter of personal freedom when your choice to do this is potentially spreading and breeding more virulent forms of viruses that can harm others.
It appears to me that the medicine industry is sustained in a large part because of government contracts. The assumption that a government will provide the money in the form of bulk purchases are what makes the expensive development process worth embarking on. Costs will be reduced as the production is refined, but it's the assumption of initial high-priced purchases that will give the research the green light in the first place. Paul proposes to import more medicine produced abroad to cut costs. Now, if states are expected to deal with medical purchases on an individual basis, with no wider federal government pressure not to skimp on what they offer coverage for, while the rest of the world is continuing with a different system more profitable to the medical industry because a certain level of medical coverage is enshrined in law, I don't see how this could even drive down medicine costs in the US. There would surely be international pressure to make Americans pay more for the drugs that the rest of the developed world have apparently subsidised, and these drugs won't even be made in America anymore, so it can't even be regulated against at home if things become too painful. Perhaps my amateur reading of this whole web of affairs is way off mark, but it seems as though there is something strange happening here.
His attitude towards security nets for the poor seems just plain risky. Why can a developed 'country' like Hong Kong have a highly business-friendly and low-tax framework while not leaving its poorest to the dogs, and not the Unites States? Paul's somewhat patronising-sounding promises of vouchers and the like for the poor sounds borderline demeaning and I don't believe that he will be particularly concerned if his policies do more harm in this respect, as they will be for a "greater good". In fact, he is intelligent enough to surely be expecting some of his policies to lead to unintended consequences.
Quote from: Dowder on January 12, 2012, 01:08:35 AM
Obama got his party's nomination and was elected president, in strong part because he appeared articulate and presidential to a lot of voters.
I can't help but agree. The fact that he's not getting a challenge from within his own party is unfortunate.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 12, 2012, 04:36:34 AM
His de-regulation extending to things like removing mandatory immunisation for children, which could see the resurgence of diseases on the decline. While it's nice to think that people, if the curtains are lifted from their eyes, will suddenly begin to make the correct choices, various hysterias indicate the opposite. Things like this aren't purely a matter of personal freedom when your choice to do this is potentially spreading and breeding more virulent forms of viruses that can harm others.
Excellent points. One of the most disturbing aspects of our health care system (and why we pay more to get less than the other "less enlightened" countries) is the lack of support for preventive care. Why programs that have been shown to be as cost-effective as the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) ever every controversial is hard to determine. The sad thing is that we pick up the tab for the uninsured sooner or later, but usually in worse situations or settings.
Another point about rampant deregulation. Currently the financial incentives in the American Health Care system are to render a service, not to make people healthy. The Fee-for service paradigm is a major part of what is wrong, and deregulation will only make it worse. At least Obama was willing to raise the issue, but the ACA (Obamacare) only tangentilly addressed this issue through Accountability Care Organizations. Letting the market take care of it will continue to accelerate the spiral unless we allow emergency rooms and hospitals to turn away the uninsured-- which is pretty drastic.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 12, 2012, 04:36:34 AM
It appears to me that the medicine industry is sustained in a large part because of government contracts. The assumption that a government will provide the money in the form of bulk purchases are what makes the expensive development process worth embarking on. Costs will be reduced as the production is refined, but it's the assumption of initial high-priced purchases that will give the research the green light in the first place. Paul proposes to import more medicine produced abroad to cut costs.
It looks to me that you are talking mostly about Pharma here. (Remember that Medicare Part D, which is a large contributor to the spike in govt costs was not originated under Obama.) The need for subsidizing is strongest when treating less common conditions. Pharma companies don't mind investing as much if there will be a large audience. From what I've read, the biggest expense in pharmaceutical development is not the guys in white coats in a lab, but in recruiting for clinical trials. Our privacy and HIPAA regulations make it very hard and expensive to staff trials-- and this is one case where I feel that softening HIPAA regulations could lesson one cause of the increase in costs.
In terms of the government and costs , projections during the end of the Bush era showed that the US (Under medicare) was going to be the single largest payer of healthcare costs in the US by 2015 or so-- and this was assuming that nothing was done.
I agree about the ability of states to support some of this. Anyone who thinks states will be more efficient and devising 50 solutions to the same problem may not have worked with them much.
The fetish for vouchers sounds like a good idea-- but in experience with charter schools on No Child Left Behind, , 40 % of the charter schools had worse scores.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 12, 2012, 04:36:34 AM
His attitude towards security nets for the poor seems just plain risky.
I agree. Even if you don't care for the poor, somebody will need to pick up the tab when someone who has untreated diabetes needs to be hospitalized and treated for end stage renal failure for many times the cost. Most non-profits and organizations incorporated as hospitals are not allowed to turn away uninsured patients. But they need to recover costs somehow.
The hysteria about advanced directives (Sarah Palin's "death panels", a term later she denied was to be used literally) is another contributor, given the amount of spending given towards end of life care is a major chunk of health care spendin. I haven't found a US study, but in an austrailian one, it was estimated that 30% of the patients in end of life situations were not able to make decisions for care, and and not provided an advance directive. An advanced directive is not just about pulling the plug-- you can specify you want every possible step taken to prolong your life, no matter how unpleasant they may be.
We need to think about quality of life as well. A recent study showed patients with lung cancer lived longer (and better) when they moved straight to hospice care. I lost my mother a year ago to cancer-- and the decision to move to hospice care gave her several bright months, and actually better care than the hospital provided. (The local hospice better addressed some of her symptoms when she was admitted, and she was released alive, and lived 4 more months in her home as she wished. She was happier, and I believe here insurance company was, as well) This should be a patient's decision-- not one driven by fear of lawsuits, or by the profit incentive of costly medical interventions.
A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.
of course, this guy is a Democrat, but I still think that by far the best one in the race is Vermin Supreme. No one comes close.
http://www.youtube.com/v/DFXXAuDK1Ao
Quote from: jowcol on January 12, 2012, 07:30:27 AM
A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.
Aye, both the guvmint and the free market benefit from good watchdogs.
Quote from: jowcol on January 12, 2012, 07:32:16 AM
of course, this guy is a Democrat, but I still think that by far the best one in the race is Vermin Supreme. No one comes close.
Could be his year . . . .
Quote from: jowcol on January 11, 2012, 02:22:26 PMDidn't the Constitution also replace the Articles of Confederation which allowed states to make their own currency? The aim was to discourage that practice. (athough, it would allow states to issue currency that was based on a Gold or Silver standard...)
Yes, constitutional government replaced the failed (or at least failing) one established under the Articles. Article 1, Section 10 allows states to accept gold
and silver as legal tender, but it prevents them from coining money. Everyone framing the Constitution knew the problems of competitive currencies at the state level, Madison and especially Hamilton among them.
After the demise of the Second Bank of the United States, though, much of the country used what was in effect competing currencies issued by banks. Guess what, there were problems. Such bank notes were often exchanged at discounts immediately (ie, inflation out of the gate), and counterfeiting was rampant. Not until the Civil War did things change, out of necessity.
Quote from: Dowder on January 12, 2012, 12:51:10 AMI mentioned in my post the risk of inflation and the decline of purchasing power
Yes, indeed, fiat currency has and will erode purchasing power. That is a far better condition that the vast increase in relative debt burden imposed by deflation caused by switching to hard money. Mild inflation helps regular citizens; mild deflation harms them. Severe forms of either hurt most people, though the wealthy always benefit relative to everyone else during periods of deflation.
Quote from: Dowder on January 12, 2012, 12:51:10 AMHowever, with our nation facing major economic and financial problems (such as the debt, deficits, trade imbalances, etc.) you have to wonder how long we can continue this.
This is not a convincing statement. The fiscal problems the US has can all be solved by retooling fiscal policies. Debt itself is not an issue. Get the long term, publicly held debt down to the 50-60% (or maybe a bit higher even) of GDP range, and there's plenty of room for fiscal policy if needed. Get the long term deficit-to-GDP ratio down to around 3%, and there won't be any issue borrowing at reasonable rates, and again, fiscal policy flexibility is ample. Trade imbalances are the least of the concerns, especially if the US gets its fiscal house in order. Trade stats are known to be unreliable and out of date in some cases – eg, not counting intrafirm trade properly, misappropriating value added figures, etc. It would be nice to have less of a trade imbalance, I suppose, but remember that none other than Adam Smith himself pointed out that trade deficits means the country running the deficit is, in effect, getting goods at a relative discount. It's a bogeyman suited best for political fear-mongering. Further, none of these have anything to do with gold standard.
Quote from: Dowder on January 12, 2012, 12:51:10 AMWithout some kind of change our dollar won't be the world's reserve currency and we won't be able to borrow against it.
Correct, without fiscal restraint, the US dollar will continue to lose preeminence more rapidly than it otherwise would. But it's going to, anyway. Over the next several decades, as China continues to grow, its currency will become more significant and the dollar less so on world markets. Returning to the gold standard will do nothing to alleviate this. All it will do is restrict policy options. That is bad.
Quote from: Dowder on January 12, 2012, 12:51:10 AMAs you know, for RP its the end of the Fed and the return to a Gold Standard. Will that happen? I doubt it, but the goal for RP with the legislation was to scare the Fed into acting more responsibly simply by giving citizens the choice.
What does "giving citizens a choice" mean? Return to pre-Civil War monetary conditions? That's purely reactionary and premised on wishful thinking. The gold standard is being touted as a solution to problems it cannot solve.
It's always interesting to read the writings of supporters of the gold standard go on about gold. But why gold? Gold itself has no intrinsic value. It is assigned value by those who use it. Same with all other forms of money throughout history. Like fiat currency. Somehow, though, gold is supposed to offer a sound basis for money. But then there's not enough, so people want silver. (Hell, it's even in the Constitution.) That is, they want
more money. Why not toss platinum, beryllium, titanium, zinc, copper, or any other valuable metal into the mix. All are traded on markets; all can be priced. Artificially anchoring a nation's currency to an arbitrarily selected store of value doesn't offer the touted solutions and benefits. It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to live in the 19th Century.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2012, 07:35:28 AM
Could be his year . . . .
I would like to see Vermin apply his fairy dust to Santorum- hopefully before the South Carolina Primary.
Kamikaze Gingrich Quote from: Dana MilbankRomney has it wrong. Gingrich's attacks on him are the very essence of free enterprise: They're helped by campaign finance laws that sell elections to the highest bidder. For those Republicans who thought that unlimited political contributions would be a good thing for their party, it's a delicious irony that a casino billionaire is using his money to underwrite a populist assault on the GOP front-runner.
RTWT here.
@jowcol:
pharmaceutical industry was indeed the word that I was scrambling for ;D Thanks for your post, it was a great read.
Quote from: jowcol on January 12, 2012, 07:30:27 AM
A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.
This in particular is what affects me the most when I try to think about politics. I have a terminal case of moderation - not really meaning I prefer a status quo, but I would like to find a sensible middle ground between all radical points of view, to temper the worst aspects and hopefully gain the better ones. Unfortunately this requires just as much effort as radicalism itself, and as such is even more politically unviable because it has no easy taglines to describe it -_-
Good clean fun:Quote from: Eugene RobinsonRomney's toughest competitor [in New Hampshire] turned out to be Ron Paul, who's running not a campaign but a crusade. He used his speech Tuesday night to explain why the Federal Reserve is a nexus of pure evil, why compassionate government is invariably cruel and why virtually all events beyond U.S. borders can be blithely ignored. I know Romney's not the most dazzling campaigner, but I think he can take this guy.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 12, 2012, 08:15:43 AM
@jowcol: pharmaceutical industry was indeed the word that I was scrambling for ;D Thanks for your post, it was a great read.
This in particular is what affects me the most when I try to think about politics. I have a terminal case of moderation - not really meaning I prefer a status quo, but I would like to find a sensible middle ground between all radical points of view, to temper the worst aspects and hopefully gain the better ones. Unfortunately this requires just as much effort as radicalism itself, and as such is even more politically unviable because it has no easy taglines to describe it -_-
For me, it's not so much a matter of being radical or status quo, but addressing the problems first, and not the ideology. Ideology typically limits choices, and requires people to address complex issues with yes-no answers. All of this "pledge signing" hysteria has made it worse.
As you put it though, it is unviable. People want to be told each election is a simple choice between good and evil, and don't want to bear the burden of freedom to view each problem as a separate problem. As the Grand Inquisitor told Christ in the Brothers Karamazov, people just want easy answers and bread, and to unload that uncomfortable burden of freedom. It's terrifying to live in a world where problems and solutions are complex and constantly changing, when you aren't carrrying a score card the boils everything down to two simple choices.
Quote from: James on January 12, 2012, 07:34:48 AM
If there is truth to what you are saying and lots of people in your country place so much value on such superficial things it's very unfortunate.
I fully agree. We get what we deserve. Although, I'm enough of a cynic to believe that the US is not the only country that votes based on superficial impressions.
Don't kid yourself, James: Looking at the substance of Dr Paul's positions ain't the slam-dunk you are fond to imagine. And let's say it again: If he cannot function as a legislator, what confidence should anyone have that he can function as an executive? And the record shows he cannot function as a legislator.
Quote from: James on January 12, 2012, 07:34:48 AMhe has all the qualities that make up a 'great' leader who truly stands from something real, and his record backs that up in spades.
At this point, I have to think that James has been joking the whole time. If not, this post demonstrates a fundmental difference in perception of reality.
Just curious: does anyone here think that the US President, whoever he be, acts alone and on his own? That his theoretical ideas can be translated tale quale in the real world? That an uncompromisingly (is this a word?) principled approach to whatever, from social security to immigration to foreign policy and everything in between, works better than flip-floping (i.e, realism and pragmatism)?
Oh, and a specific question for James: it can be inferred form your posts that you're not American - may I ask what country are you a citizen of, and whom did you vote for in the last elections? TIA for answering.
Just saw this at washingtonpost.com:QuoteWhat Paul and Darth Vader have in common
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2012, 09:29:21 AMJust curious: does anyone here think that the US President, whoever he be, acts alone and on his own?
I would certainly hope no one thinks that.
Seeing this reminds me of one of Truman's quips about Eisenhower before the '52 election: He'll issue orders and then nothing will happen. (I can't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist of it.)
Quote from: jowcol on January 12, 2012, 07:30:27 AM
A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2012, 07:34:06 AM
Aye, both the guvmint and the free market benefit from good watchdogs.
Fully agree with you, gentlemen.
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2012, 09:29:21 AM
Just curious: does anyone here think that the US President, whoever he be, acts alone and on his own? That his theoretical ideas can be translated tale quale in the real world? That an uncompromisingly (is this a word?) principled approach to whatever, from social security to immigration to foreign policy and everything in between, works better than flip-floping (i.e, realism and pragmatism)?
Well, we've had realists and pragmatists for the last twenty years here in the US--Bush father and son, Clinton, and now Obama, and it's not like it's gotten us much return on the dollar, so to speak.
Reagan seems to be, among modern presidents (that is, in the last few decades), the most generally admired; he was also the most ideologically minded (although of course he abandoned ideology a number of times). People tend to admire someone who says, "Here I stand, i can do no other"--even if they then turn around and ask someone else to actually fix their problems.
Re Paul's rather slim legislative success--in modern DC, with it's atmosphere of perpetual partisanship, cronyism and refusal to deal with actual problems in any way that's oriented to reality, that's something that may be more a feature than a bug.
The President obviously can not do everything himself. If he could, the United States would be now be under the rule of al-Qaeda's Mexican branch, all government revenues would be going to politically correct and politically connected environuts, Mrs. Obama would be vetting every restaurant menu in the USA, Jeremiah Wright would be leading anti-imperialist struggle sessions on Wall Street with the help of Ayers, the US courts would be full of judges ready to approve every twelve year old girl's application for abortion without parental notice, and everyone would be forced to join a government employees union*
But the President has (reverting to seriousness) what we call the bully pulpit. He has a unique power to draw people's attention to problems and to the solutions to those problems. It's a power Obama has been curiously loath to wield until this year.
*The more familiar with Republican and American right political blogs, the more apparent will be the satire in that paragraph.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 12, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Well, we've had realists and pragmatists for the last twenty years here in the US--Bush father and son, Clinton, and now Obama, and it's not like it's gotten us much return on the dollar, so to speak.
As far as Clinton goes-- the first two years of his term I don't think he was either realistic or pragmatic-- he tried to "solve" the health problem as well, and basically green lighted the "Democratic Agenda". It wasn't until he lost the house that he demonstrated more pragmatism. As far as getting the "return on the dollar"-- do you remember the economy and deficit as he left office? (Not that I give him all that much credit...) Taxes raised under his presidency, but the economy boomed. Which means that the the simplistic "less taxes more growth" argument is something that needs to be addressed in more detalil
Bush Sr. was definitely pragmatic in my book, and his downfall was unfortunate-- he saw when taxes needed to be raised, and faced up to it. Bush Jr.'s notion of fostering gov't change in the Middle East and retaining tax cuts while pursuing two wars does not strike me as all that pragmatic. (Other than to secure reelection-- if that was the point you were trying to make) I don't hold Bush Jr. fully responsible for the economy either (many external factors), but the impact of the tax cuts has been to increase the deficit more than what Obama as done. (Although, Obama's unwillingness to let them expire, and his attempts to play class warfare on top of that demonstrates he's more worried about getting reelected than anything else. )
[quote author=Jeffrey Smith link=topic=19080.msg592043#msg592043 date=1326420300
Reagan seems to be, among modern presidents (that is, in the last few decades), the most generally admired; he was also the most ideologically minded (although of course he abandoned ideology a number of times).
[/quote]
That's what made him effective. But that makes him a pragmatist in my book. I wouldn't confuse the public persona with the decisions that come out of that administration. Also, the arms buildup under his leadership was definitely what I'd call big-government spending.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 12, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Re Paul's rather slim legislative success--in modern DC, with it's atmosphere of perpetual partisanship, cronyism and refusal to deal with actual problems in any way that's oriented to reality, that's something that may be more a feature than a bug.
The elephant in the room, if you ask me, is lobby and the money needed to get election. (Made worse with the role super PACs are now able to play. The ability of both parties to act in the nation's interests are undermined by special interests. If if the "american people" got smarter and more discerning, the candidates would lose the media war to get elected if they don't bow down before the special interests and lobbies. This fuels partisanship as well-- as each part is not allowed to address fixing problems that may cut the income of one of their special interests.
[/quote]
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 12, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
But the President has (reverting to seriousness) what we call the bully pulpit. He has a unique power to draw people's attention to problems and to the solutions to those problems. It's a power Obama has been curiously loath to wield until this year.
I would have to agree. For all of those who portray Obama as a power-crazed despot planning to install a new order-- I don't think he's going about it the right way . He's one of the most "hands-off" presidents I've seen. His inability to guide congress when his party had control was mind-boggling. He seems to want to be the smooth consensus builder-- but he doesn't seem to realize that building a consensus means not being smooth some of the time. People say he's angered his party, but he gave Reid and Pelosi full reign to run wild with Healthcare. I wish his "visions" were more concrete and limited in scope. Getting back to the ACA ("Obamacare"-- sorry, it's what I do for a living )-- Kathryn Sibelius of the HHS said it contained very recommended fix by respected analysts to address health care costs. That was the problem-- it was the kitchen sink, filled to some tasty leftovers, (and some not), but there was little though to how it would be managed. I DO believe that the health care crisis requires action, but the need to cram everything in one bill was silly, and will likely drag down several good ideas by making too big a mouthful to swallow.
Getting back to the main theme-- I don't consider Obama as the most pragmatic at all-- he's shown more of that in his foreign policy.
Chas Krauthammer: Ron Paul's achievement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-achievement/2012/01/12/gIQABS7duP_story.html?hpid=z2)
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMHowever, a Gold Standard--from what I've read--seems to create price stability and limit/discourage risky financial behavior because of its natural limitations
Yet there were severe panics in 1873, 1893, 1907, and 1929. (1920-21 was more directly related to a sharp decrease in war expenditures.) Severe recessions/depressions and panics are less common now than before WWII. Leaving the gold standard has not made the situation worse. Your assertion doesn't square with history.
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMcouldn't it be argued that the current meltdown was caused by a housing bubble that was, in many ways, created by the Fed's artifically low interest rates (along with GSE's and coercion through programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act)?
The Fed did pursue easy money for too long, and that did contribute to the meltdown. Of course, whenever the Fed raises rates, politicians – right, left, and center – criticize the Fed. Check news articles from 1994, when politicians of all stripes wanted Greenspan's head for jacking up rates. The Fed is now, as it often has been in the past, a bogeyman for those looking for a politically convenient scapegoat. Economic populism never dies.
As to the CRA, well, unfortunately for conservatives on their high horse about such matters, initial studies by the Fed show the CRA to be of minimal significance to the collapse. Do you have any hard numbers to back up your implied assertion that it was significant in the collapse? I'm not saying that the CRA is necessarily good policy, but there is precious little
evidence that it was a major part of the 2008 collapse. It was one more minor part.
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMPerhaps I'm wrong here, but I thought one of the major reasons we ridded ourselves of the Gold Standard in '71 was because of the mounting current account deficits. We simply couldn't repay all the money we owed in gold; hence the need for a fiat currency.
Yep, trade deficits and increases in the money supply to fund the Vietnam War led foreign countries to demand conversion of dollar holdings to gold. Rather than allow (primarily) Europeans to deplete all gold reserves, Nixon nixed conversion. A good move, I'd say. His accompanying wage and price controls were not quite so good.
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMYou mention re-tooling fiscal policies, though; am interested which ones you would consider. Would you consider any changes to the Fed itself?
There are a whole host of fiscal policy changes I would like to see. The overarching budget targets were described previously. Broadly speaking, the changes I'd like to see include increasing revenue through eliminating various deductions and subsidies, then (and only then) raising top marginal rates and possibly marginal rates lower down the scale, and significant revamping of Social Security and Medicare. Defense can and should be cut as well, with less devoted to Europe (which Obama is proposing and doing now, though not fast enough) and wasteful programs like the last remnants of missile defense getting the ax. The Fed should be primarily focused on maintaining price stability rather than the conflicting goals Congress has in place now, and should publish more information to sate the desires of those consumed with the notion of Fed secrecy. Other changes are possible, but the basic structure of an independent agency with governors appointed to long terms is essential, in my view. Monetary policy should never be subject to election cycle whims. It should also never be locked into an inherently inflexible system. Or at least never again.
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMChina is rising and our place in the world won't be as preeminent. Maybe our past policies have helped to create this situation?
Absolutely US policies have helped. The US pushed to have China in the WTO, for instance. The US has granted China MFN status for decades. Boosting trade with China has been policy in the US for decades.
In addition, the US fiscal situation has worsened since the early '80s, when Reagan took office, requiring greater reliance on foreign investors. Republicans have routinely touted irresponsible fiscal policies for decades, initially backed by the infamous and laughable Laffer Curve, and now backed by outright economic insanity. Democrats are nearly as bad, with their insistence that social programs not be properly restructured or eliminated. However, your question also points out a peculiar and arrogant American position: the US is somehow responsible for what happens everywhere, at least to a large extent. The Chinese are pursuing a slate of policies specifically designed to become a more powerful nation. US policies may contribute, but they are not the driving force behind the changes.
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMIt's the competing in competing currency; citizens can opt for a currency potentially more stable and valuable instead of the ever inflating dollar.
Yes, but how would this help average Americans? You have not shown this
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AMWell, gold (and silver!) have been used historically, for various reasons which I'm sure you know, Todd. Civilizations have valued it in monetary matters because it has been seen as a lasting and stable source of wealth and value--unlike paper money. Of course it has its limitations; debasement and fraud can occur with gold just like paper money can get counterfitted (or inflated).
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an arbitrary selection. It also doesn't change the fact that other items have been used as money throughout history. Gold and silver are falsely assigned near-magical properties. (And it's hard to believe any Republican would want silver to back money. Too many shades of Bryan.)
Quote from: Todd on January 12, 2012, 09:36:44 AM
I would certainly hope no one thinks that.
Seeing this reminds me of one of Truman's quips about Eisenhower before the '52 election: He'll issue orders and then nothing will happen. (I can't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist of it.)
"He'll sit here," Truman would remark (tapping his desk for emphasis), "and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike-it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating." - from Richard Neustadt's "Presidential Power and the Modern President"
Generals never seem to make good presidents.
Truman also called Douglas MacArthur a "dumb son-of-a-bitch", but my favorite quote of his is "never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."
Quote from: Szykneij on January 15, 2012, 11:17:22 AMGenerals never seem to make good presidents.
Truman also called Douglas MacArthur a "dumb son-of-a-bitch", but my favorite quote of his is "never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."
Washington wasn't too bad. Jackson had and has his share of admirers. And Eisenhower was actually pretty good. That's a 25% success rate. Not particularly inspiring.
I don't think I'd say MacArthur was dumb at all. Supremely arrogant and insubordinate, maybe, but not dumb. I think FDR was closer to the mark when he called MacArthur one of the most dangerous men in America - before sending him to the Philippines.
Quote from: Dowder on January 14, 2012, 02:58:23 AM
Well, gold (and silver!)
GOLD AND SILVER!
SILVER AND GOLD!
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS26RCdn1OGdjg4SQ9ZnGiWhL1Nf_s0tD6p0BmMTPdlQNSJjaxi0A)
(Sorry, I'm getting flashbacks from my childhood.)
I'd vote for Vermin Supreme any day over any of the Repugnican candidates. This guy has more brains and savvy in one cell of his body than all of them combined.
Vermin Supreme forever !!!!!!! Yay Vermin Supreme !!!!!!!!
You mean, you don't like even Rick Santorum?
Quote31. What are the two major political parties in the United States?
Oh, I was tempted to hit the American and Bull-Moose option for a lark, sure . . . .
Quote from: Joel AchenbachRomney also said he's made money from speaker fees, "but not very much." Last year, "not very much" was $374,000. Which raises the question of what "very much" is. I look at that number and I think: Wow, that would pay my college tuition bill for several semesters.
Romney has his profoundly tone-deaf moments, though, don't he?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 18, 2012, 10:37:27 AMRomney has his profoundly tone-deaf moments, though, don't he?
He's an Average Joe.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 18, 2012, 09:02:36 AM
Oh, I was tempted to hit the American and Bull-Moose option for a lark, sure . . . .
It's pretty clear from recent events that the "Know Nothings" are VERY active, and have infiltrated both major parties.
Quote from: Superhorn on January 18, 2012, 08:45:56 AM
I'd vote for Vermin Supreme any day over any of the Repugnican candidates. This guy has more brains and savvy in one cell of his body than all of them combined.
Vermin Supreme forever !!!!!!! Yay Vermin Supreme !!!!!!!!
He's the only one so far who makes sense. AND he will give me a pony.
I'm Squrimin' for Vermin!
Hm, the options for question 72. are particularly entertaining, I thought:Quote72. What was one important thing that Abraham Lincoln did?
a. saved (or preserved) the Union
b. established the United Nations
c. declared war on Great Britain
d. purchased Alaska
Cool! Maybe Romney isn't really the front-runner after all:Quote from: Debbi WilgorenThe Des Moines Register reports today that Rick Santorum beat the former Massachusetts governor by 34 votes. Reversal is muddled by the fact that results from eight precincts "are missing."
RTWT here.
Of course, in that event, phut goes Romney's historic one-two, Iowa-NH biathlon.
Surgically done: ". . . flat-earthism in the economic realm."
RTWT here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrich-invents-again-this-time-on-private-equity-looting/2012/01/18/gIQAYHPPAQ_blog.html)
Breaking news: “Rick Perry to drop out . . . .”
Quote from: karlhenning on January 19, 2012, 05:39:54 AMBreaking news: "Rick Perry to drop out . . . ."
Why did no one mention Huntsman throwing in the towel on the thread? Anyway, two more gone from the field of the millenium.
Now for Saturday's Romney v Gingrich smackdown!
Quote from: karlhenning on January 19, 2012, 03:52:47 AM
Cool! Maybe Romney isn't really the front-runner after all:
RTWT here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/des-moines-register-santorum-edged-romney-in-iowa-by-34-votes/2012/01/19/gIQArZjLAQ_blog.html)
Can you hear the sound of hanging chads in the breeze?
Quote from: jowcol on January 19, 2012, 06:54:53 AM
Can you hear the sound of hanging chads in the breeze?
How peacefully they sway!
And: the things I didn't know about Newt! He . . . married his high school geometry teacher?
He married his high school geometry teacher? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/marianne-gingrich-newt-gingrichs-ex-wife-tells-abc-news-he-was-asking-to-have-an-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQARZvtAQ_blog.html) Now, that's what I call a transformational figure!
Newt Gingrich Promises Palin a Presidential Appointment and Commits a Felony (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/18/1056110/-Newt-Gingrich-Promises-Palin-a-Presidential-Appointment-and-Commits-a-Felony?via=siderecent)
Why are these people so bad at their jobs ;_;
In his small, amusing way, Newt is truly a wonder. That's nearly the only word for it . . . .
And maybe it's time to stop pretending Gingrich is fit for the White House and viable as a nominee. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-or-chance-at-the-nomination/2012/01/19/gIQAncosAQ_blog.html)
Quote from: James on January 20, 2012, 05:15:44 AMI wasn't touched once. Because quite frankly, I can't be.
There is some truth to this, though not in the way Paul intended.
Quote from: James on January 20, 2012, 05:15:44 AM
Ron Paul is by far the better than all the other candidates including Obama on Civil Liberties ..
Ron Paul Moves To Repeal Indefinite Detention Of American Citizens Without Trial!
http://www.youtube.com/v/HbY9I_Jt4uA
Debate Audience Protests CNN Attempts To Exclude Ron Paul
Crowd boos and jeers, demands Paul be allowed to answer
Steve Watson
January 20, 2012
A remarkable scene unfolded during last night's CNN hosted South Carolina debate when not once but twice, the audience had to intervene to ensure that Ron Paul be included in questions, as host John King attempted to skip over the Congressman following answers from the other three candidates.
Even more remarkable was the fact that both times the questions were related to medical issues and Ron Paul is the only qualified doctor among all the candidates.
Between the sideshow of Newt Gingrich's infidelity and yet more mudslinging and circus like back and forths between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, Ron Paul did his best to speak on real issues such as cutting foreign military spending, protecting the borders and the need to reform the government-run health care system.
However, when it came to two key questions it was left to the audience to remind the CNN anchors that Ron Paul was up on the stage and that voters wanted to hear him speak.
The first instance occurred when King somewhat reluctantly threw Ron Paul the question "would you repeal Obamacare?" following answers from the rest of the field.
To wild ironic cheering and whooping from the audience acknowledging that Ron Paul had finally been included in the question, the Congressman exclaimed "PHEW, I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and the doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something!"
Watch the footage:
http://www.youtube.com/v/JBYtIHXXEDw
The second instance of CNN completely ignoring Paul occurred when King attempted to switch subjects from the issue of abortion without asking for Ron Paul's thoughts.
"All right, let's take another question," King said after hearing from the other three candidates only. "Let's take a question now from social media..."
Only when the audience began to boo and jeer, asking for Ron Paul to be afforded the opportunity to answer, did King allow the Congressman to speak.
"...before we move on, you want in on this issue?" King said to Paul, "They want you in on this issue..." King added, addressing the audience.
"John, once again, it's a medical subject. I'm a doctor," Paul protested, drawing cheers from the crowd before giving his thoughts.
Watch the footage:
http://www.youtube.com/v/5tMYnU4gUeo
The blatant attempt by King and CNN to bypass Ron Paul, represents yet another example of the mainstream media downplaying and sidelining the only real anti-establishment candidate.
With Rick Perry having dropped out earlier in the day, there were just four candidates left on stage, yet Ron Paul was STILL afforded significantly less speaking time than his GOP rivals.
However, Paul still gave a strong performance, topping all the post debate analysis polling.
Following the debate, Congressman Paul sent an email to his supporters regarding his debate showing.
"My debate performance tonight is already turning heads." Paul wrote. "What the crowd saw tonight was my opponents savaging each other over and over in a desperate attempt to defend their Big Government records. Me? I wasn't touched once. Because quite frankly, I can't be. I've spent 30 years fighting against establishment politicians – like my opponents – to finally put an END to politics as usual."
Don't worry, Jeb Bush will be... uh... 'drafted' ('
...if you know what's good fer ya...')... to save the Repububblican Party from such a fate! Somewhere... someone... is sitting... waiting...
bwa...bwa, ha....bwaha....
bwahahahahahahahahahaha...
Do you all commenting on this Thread not take the Dark Overlord seriously? What?? :o,... the election can't be rigged?,... stolen?,...
...nawww, they can't do dat...
How do these people get away with being so corrupt :-X
Romney: I Won't Release My Tax Returns Because 'I Don't Want To Give The Democrats A Nice Little Present' (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/20/407719/romney-i-wont-release-my-tax-returns-because-i-dont-want-to-give-the-democrats-a-nice-little-present/?mobile=nc)
Mmm, a present! And you know, it's going to come in, sooner or later . . . .
That sounds strangely guilty! :D
The more you see of Romney, the less electable he appears . . . .
Quote from: EJ DionneMuch has changed in just 36 hours. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry started the week tearing at each other in what looked like a fight for second place. Now Perry is out, and his ads attacking Gingrich and Santorum are off the air. Gingrich moved from far behind to within striking distance of Romney - and, in at least three polls, is narrowly ahead of him. This has the feeling of a Gingrich resurrection, his second in this campaign.
You know, Team Obama dream of having Newt to run against. RTWT here.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 20, 2012, 10:38:58 AM
The more you see of Romney, the less electable he appears . . . .
I don't want to see any of them. They only make me angry, and they wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
Newt would like you when you're angry, 'cause he'd riff off you and bluff his way through, some more . . . .
Blah. I'm voting for Cthulhu. ;D
You're just vexed because la Bachmann got sent back to her constituency, bwa-ha-ha-haaa!
What are her chances of re-election, do you reckon?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 20, 2012, 11:42:44 AM
You're just vexed because la Bachmann got sent back to her constituency, bwa-ha-ha-haaa!
What are her chances of re-election, do you reckon?
I only know she's evil. I really, really, really hate politicians so I don't pay much attention until it's time to vote at which point I vote for the lesser evil.
Dude, I'm listening to Monk Plays the Duke, cuz I know you dig it, too : )
Quote from: karlhenning on January 20, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
Dude, I'm listening to Monk Plays the Duke, cuz I know you dig it, too : )
That's a good reason to listen to something. ;D
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 20, 2012, 10:29:07 AMHow do these people get away with being so corrupt
Since when is obstinacy the same as corruption? His behavior is perhaps a bit baffling, because he will have to release them eventually, at which point the world will be shocked to learn that he is a wealthy man with a large income who pays a tax rate many people envy. I don't know how I'll take the news. The delay in releasing will then be a non-issue.
While I know rich people are inherently bad – they must be, they're rich – I must say that Gingrich's revelation that he paid 31% makes him look less presidential. What, he couldn't hire good accountants and lawyers to lower his bill? Does this show that he knows how to select the right people to fill key positions?
Remember, this election will follow the same logic as 1992: It's the economy, stupid. If things improve enough, and are getting better, Barry gets another four years, barring some major surprise in the fall. If not, he's vulnerable.
Hokey smoke, all the staff at the Washingon Post are picking the Newtster to edge the Mittster (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/who-will-win-the-republican-primary-in-south-carolina/2012/01/20/gIQAwcbvDQ_blog.html)
(http://www.uxpassion.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/astonishment150x94.png)
We cannot have a president named Newt. (There must be a Seussian poem in there somewhere.)
Not having So. Carolina seal the deal for Mitt is just so right, though.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 20, 2012, 11:58:31 AMNot having So. Carolina seal the deal for Mitt is just so right, though.
Yes, much better to have it decided in Florida, that bastion of well managed elections.
Hah! A Long Island Iced Tea for me, thanks!
David Gergen's follow-up is astute, and decent. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/newt-gingrichs-anti-media-rant-translated/2012/01/20/gIQAjDluDQ_blog.html)
As much as Newt hates ABC, I see a nice tie-in if he wins: Presidential Wife Swap.
Quote from: Todd on January 20, 2012, 11:52:03 AM
I must say that Gingrich's revelation that he paid 31% makes him look less presidential. What, he couldn't hire good accountants and lawyers to lower his bill?
Maybe he just loves his country, and knows it needs the money more than he does. ;D
Quote from: toucan on January 20, 2012, 10:44:10 PM
Question to Newt: if elected, will Callista be the First Lady or is there another girl in training right now?
And if wife #2's claims that Callista is willing to share are true, will there be a Second or Third Lady? Who would have thought, it be a Catholic, rather than one of the Mormons, who wanted to practice polygamy?
Probably a moot point. It's getting harder and harder to see Michelle not getting four more years.
Quote from: Ataraxia on January 20, 2012, 11:44:51 AM
I only know she's evil. I really, really, really hate politicians so I don't pay much attention until it's time to vote at which point I vote for the lesser evil.
I'm sure Cthulhu and all the elder ones fear Bachmann too.
Quote from: toucan on January 20, 2012, 10:44:10 PM
Question to Newt: if elected, will Callista be the First Lady or is there another girl in training right now?
Newt: Let me answer that by saying how despicable it is for you to raise this question and yes, both. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
I must admit that I find the attacks on Newt Gingrich's personal life uncalled for and beside the point. The man is a loathsome douchebag based solely on political grounds.
Quote from: Todd on January 21, 2012, 06:59:43 AM
I must admit that I find the attacks on Newt Gingrich's personal life uncalled for and beside the point. The man is a loathsome douchebag based solely on political grounds.
I'm inclined to agree with your point, but Newt makes it very, very difficult to ignore his behavior given the colossal level of hypocrisy involved in his constant moralizing, as well as his revolting brandishing of his religious conversion. Just because Newt can find a god somewhere gullible enough to forgive him doesn't mean we have to. In the end, though, voters aren't going to make Newt the next President. He's a twofer, both corrupt
and fanatical. The closer you get to him the more odious he appears. Ask his former colleagues, who for some strange reason don't love him.
Quote from: drogulus on January 21, 2012, 07:38:57 AMI'm inclined to agree with your point
I was joking. The man is loathsome all the way around and should be criticized accordingly.
Quote from: Todd on January 21, 2012, 07:42:12 AM
I was joking. The man is loathsome all the way around and should be criticized accordingly.
Of course, this is not just infidelity, it rises to the level of creepiness. I mean, how does anyone put up with this guy? If I was in a room with him I'd be tempted to slowly edge my way out:
"Uh, excuse me, but I need to feed the parking meter." And I don't have a car. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
I'm voting for Santa Claus as President, with the Tooth Faity for Vice President. They'll do a much better job than any of the Republicans.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Oops. That should read Tooth Fairy,not Tooth Faity. Finger slip,as usual.
Quote from: toucan on January 22, 2012, 07:18:44 AM
What you're saying is, you'd rather be fooled by the promises of Democrats, than heed the calls for budgetary discipline of Republicans...
Um, wasn't it a Republican who worsened the budgetary discipline?
Quote from: toucan on January 22, 2012, 07:18:44 AM
What you're saying is, you'd rather be fooled by the promises of Democrats, than heed the calls for budgetary discipline of Republicans...
It's an obvious point, I suppose, but the only people who "heed the calls for budgetary discipline" are Democrats. That's why they raise taxes, when they do, because paying for what you buy with tax revenue
is budgetary discipline. Republicans used to care about this but that was a long, long time ago. In budget terms they are a bunch of sociopaths now, driving the country into ever more extreme crisis while spouting preposterously dissonant rhetoric about "discipline". What a joke!
>42% of SC Evangelicals voted for Gingrich - the guy who admitted to cheating on his wife dying of cancer, then cheated on 2nd wife. Only 13% vote for Paul, married to same woman for 54 years.
Reddit is great at picking quotes and figures out of context, but this one in particular is fun.
So Gingrich, a known douchebag, won in South Carolina (Birthplace of the Civil War!®). I was thinking about possible presidential tickets if he wins the nomination. Since Rick Santorum is a douchenozzle, it would almost seem natural for him to be the VP candidate if Newt gets the nod. Together, Newt and Rick would constitute the complete package.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 22, 2012, 07:24:19 AM
Um, wasn't it a Republican who worsened the budgetary discipline?
If either side had a plan for budgetary discipline that wasn't based on sound bytes or wishful thinking, I'd be much happier. I don't think we've seen much from either party since 2000.
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 22, 2012, 08:52:06 AM
>42% of SC Evangelicals voted for Gingrich - the guy who admitted to cheating on his wife dying of cancer, then cheated on 2nd wife.
I don't get how they lap up the I asked God for forgiveness, and He forgave me, but I cannot be bothered to maintain civil discourse with my ex, ain't that just all her fault, now? gambit. To state the obvious: if you cannot be humble before your fellow creature, we have only your word that you can be humble before the Almighty. Of course, not all Evangelicals think of humility as a Christian virtue . . . .
Quote from: Jno CapehartBut here's the statistic in the exit polls that isn't getting nearly as much play as it should and spells trouble with a capital "T" for Romney. When asked, "Which one of these candidate qualities mattered most in deciding whom to support today?," 38 percent of those who said "Is a true conservative" went for Gingrich. Romney got just 2 percent of that vote. Two.
RTWT here
. . . .and another illuminating statistic:Quote from: EJ DionneExit polls showed Romney carrying only one income group, voters earning $200,000 or more a year.
RTWT here
The disconnects are many and puzzling. What was the Palmetto State thinking? Newt cannot possibly fly as a realistic candidate . . . and thus, the longer it takes Mitt to woo the party, the longer a shot he is revealed to be:Quote from: Jennifer RubinThen Gingrich went into his "I'm not a lobbyist" routine, which has long since failed the laugh test.
"A worse nominee than 2008?"
Not sure where to post this - seemed like the best place. Pretty interesting study on how conservatives and liberals see the world:
http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-liberals-dont-see-eye-eye-literally-132412890.html (http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-liberals-dont-see-eye-eye-literally-132412890.html)
QuoteConservatives & Liberals Don't See Eye-to-Eye, Literally
If you walk away from holiday dinners fuming that conservative Uncle Morton just can't see your point of view, or that liberal Aunt Betty just doesn't get it, a new finding may make it easier to cool your jets. According to the study, conservatives and liberals pay attention to their environments differently, meaning the two sides of the political spectrum quite literally don't see eye-to-eye.
Conservatives pay more attention to negative stimuli compared with liberals, the study found...
I confess I do love watching Gingrich talk about shaking up the establishment, etc. He was once, what, second in line to be President. He's the
real outsider.
Despite all the hard work Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor put in, Obama could be a two-termer. I've stated before that I would not be averse to such an outcome, if only for the entertainment offered by a wide open 2016 election. The caveat is that at least one house of Congress must remain under Republican control. Preferably they get the Senate, too.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 23, 2012, 06:36:40 AMNot sure where to post this - seemed like the best place. Pretty interesting study on how
conservatives and liberals see the world:
Biology serves as the basis for political belief? I'm a bit skeptical. How, for instance, would Russian Stalinists fit into this outlook? How about Igbo Nationalists? LDP reformers? How about Swedish Greens? Perhaps the good researchers at the University of Nebraska should peek outside the US before trying to tie biology to political beliefs.
Geo. Will chimes in: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-time-to-rally-himself-against-gingrich/2012/01/23/gIQAy4FULQ_story.html)Quote from: Geo. WillSo, because Gingrich might sparkle during 4½ hours of debates, he should be given four years of control over nuclear weapons? Odd.
New polls show Gingrich leading in Florida. Just saying.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 23, 2012, 12:37:39 PMNew polls show Gingrich leading in Florida. Just saying.
There's over a week left. Romney needs to open the floodgates on the ads. Sorry, sorry, I meant the unaffiliated Super PAC that has been supporting Romney needs to open the floodgates on the ads.
Aye, lots of time for things to grow yet more ... interesting ...
Quote from: Todd on January 23, 2012, 12:53:45 PM
There's over a week left. Romney needs to open the floodgates on the ads. Sorry, sorry, I meant the unaffiliated Super PAC that has been supporting Romney needs to open the floodgates on the ads.
Don't worry, he's been advertising here. But obviously his operation could some improvement.
I am now receiving daily robocalls urging me to vote for Romney.
1) Florida is a closed primary, meaning only people registered as Republicans can vote in the primary.
2) My mother and I have been registered for over thirty years as Democrats.
Draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 23, 2012, 06:17:35 PM
Don't worry, he's been advertising here. But obviously his operation could some improvement.
I am now receiving daily robocalls urging me to vote for Romney.
1) Florida is a closed primary, meaning only people registered as Republicans can vote in the primary.
2) My mother and I have been registered for over thirty years as Democrats.
Draw your own conclusions.
It's subliminal programming. This is how Romney the media Romney can influence like Romney your opinion love Romney without your must vote Romney knowing about it.
At least on GMG you are safe from the pernicious tentacles of the Super PACs.
What happens, would you expect, if Gingrich should manage to win in Florida?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 24, 2012, 06:06:02 AMWhat happens, would you expect, if Gingrich should manage to win in Florida?
Everything shifts to Super Tuesday. Fat times for local TV stations.
In related news, I was shocked to learn that Mitt Romney is rich, at least based on his tax returns.
Mitt's taken to wearing jeans. Sure, that's authentic.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 24, 2012, 06:35:29 AM
Mitt's taken to wearing jeans. Sure, that's authentic.
Trying to offset the whole profit is from capital gains and not wages thing I'm sure... >:D
Quote from: Greg on January 24, 2012, 06:39:46 AM
Now he's one of us! :o
Dude, didja see the guitar pick in his right hand?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 24, 2012, 06:35:29 AMMitt's taken to wearing jeans. Sure, that's authentic.
I think he looks sharp in his Roberto Cavallis.
Quote from: DavidW on January 24, 2012, 06:39:59 AM
Trying to offset the whole profit is from capital gains and not wages thing I'm sure... >:D
And we here in Massachusetts are going, He's the guy who tried running against Ted Kennedy — how can you even hope for that, if you aren't richer than the Danish monarchy?
Quote from: Todd on January 24, 2012, 06:46:56 AM
I think he looks sharp in his Roberto Cavallis.
Bet you $10,000 he's wearing Diesels!
Quote from: karlhenning on January 24, 2012, 06:51:13 AMBet you $10,000 he's wearing Diesels!
Pfft, that's fancy only to the
hoi polloi.
I like being able to fire my wardrobe consultant.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 24, 2012, 06:35:29 AM
Mitt's taken to wearing jeans. Sure, that's authentic.
It's not authentic when they're ironed.
Quote from: Kathleen ParkerEvidence suggests Gingrich lobbied in all but name.
Now there's a bulletin! Newt in Wonderland
Quote from: Wendell_E on January 25, 2012, 03:34:50 AM
It's not authentic when they're ironed.
Not even Mitt would iron his jeans!
And if someone on the staff did: he's fired!
Quote from: Todd on January 24, 2012, 06:53:00 AM
Pfft, that's fancy only to the hoi polloi.
Ahhh.. It's been too long since I've heard a Pffft. I've been going through withdrawal...
That was choice timing!
The most inflationary, dangerous and power-centered chairman of the Fed in the history of the Fed. That it is Newt Gingrich saying this of Bernanke, makes it even more entertaining.
"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
— Mitt Romney in stump speech
Really? I should set that as a choral anthem . . . .
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 26, 2012, 05:07:31 AM
"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
— Mitt Romney in stump speech
It sounds like he's channeling Rick Perry! ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on January 26, 2012, 05:14:52 AM
Really? I should set that as a choral anthem . . . .
One designated to be repeated until the end of time...
Ohh, fractal speeches! Politics are getting interesting now. :)
Quote from: Chris CilizzaTurning the crowd against a moderator has become Gingrich's signature move — used to perfection in two debates in South Carolina last week. Asked about his comments about food stamps and his second marriage, Gingrich deflected by attacking the premise of the questions.
Why Newt Needs Noisy CrowdsQuote from: Stephen StrombergThat Gingrich went out of his way to disagree makes me wonder how commentators and politicians keep claiming Gingrich is some kind of "intellectual." He denigrated the notion that debates should be serious contests in which ideas can stand — or fall — on their own. Which is about as anti-intellectual as you can get.
In CNN Republican debate tonight, the moderators should tell the audience to shut up
Quote from: karlhenning on January 26, 2012, 09:53:43 AMWhy Newt Needs Noisy Crowds
Don't demagogues always love rousing the rabble?
That's not to say that Captain Moonbase is a demagogue, or anything . . .
I agree with the blogs, but I actually like the food stamps bit. I thought Newt handled that well. If the media wants that to not happen again they need to outwit Newt or they need to get rid of the audience.
Newt Gingrich misspoke in attack against media on open marriage question (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/newt-gingrich-wrong-in-attack-against-media-on-open-marriage-question/2012/01/26/gIQA9EanSQ_blog.html)
"Misspoke" here is code for bullshat.
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2012, 09:58:59 AM
I agree with the blogs, but I actually like the food stamps bit. I thought Newt handled that well. If the media wants that to not happen again they need to outwit Newt or they need to get rid of the audience.
He's a cunning one, and thinks on his feet. Gotta grant him that.
Wicked funny:
Things Mitt Thinks About (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/what-is-mitt-romney-thinking/2012/01/26/gIQAlTqDTQ_blog.html)
I heard today that Newt promises to colonize the Moon by 2020 (assuming he's elected and serves two terms as President). Anyone here want to change his/her residence?
You really have to think big on making bs campaign promises you'll never do (which is usually all of them)! :D
The Republicans tried to obstruct Obama and hope the public would blame Obama for "dividing America". Now, I happen to think political parties are supposed to divide America, and that's what elections are for, to decide which divisions gets to govern. Then after the election I expect the minority party to make trouble for the majority and force it to compromise in its direction. That's how it works. The Republicans are doing something different, though. They are encouraging people to think that Obama is illegitimate, which means the voters who elected him must be disenfranchised because they have knowingly or otherwise turned the government over to a "Kenyan anti-colonialist". So now the Republicans want to appeal to the same voters to elect them instead. Now, since most sensible people think Obama is a rather unexceptional center-left politician who has generally followed the playbook of Democrats going back decades it's hard to see what the Republicans mean unless they are referring to the color of his skin and unusual personal story. And when you consider the use of terms like "food stamp President" there can't be much doubt what they are trying to do.
One ironic note is that they accuse Obama of being a "European" in policy, yet it's the Republicans that are emulating European contractionary ideas. Obama OTOH is pursuing a much more aggressive program, and we're better off for it, even now with the job only half done. Will the voters figure this out? Maybe not the irony part, but yes, it looks like they might decide that Obama is right to take action even if there is still concern about what or how much action is right to take.
The voters are saying in polls that the state of the economy is a far greater concern than paying down the debt. The numbers are really quite striking in this regard. Deficit and program cutting are far below jobs as a concern for most people. The huge success of the auto company restructuring and large gains in automobile manufacturing employment (which are expected to continue) constitute an elephant in the room, a really bad signal to Republicans that they played a dirty, cynical game and now they won't even have the consolation of being disgraced winners. My fingers are crossed. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Bulldog on January 26, 2012, 12:09:37 PM
I heard today that Newt promises to colonize the Moon by 2020 (assuming he's elected and serves two terms as President).
I guess he's going above recommended dosage on his medicine...
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 27, 2012, 05:10:00 AM
I guess he's going above recommended dosage on his medicine...
Whatever you may think about the Moon plan, at least he's been a big enough thinker to address one of the most crucial issues, that none of his remaining opponents has dared think about. I'm starting to be won over by the man.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/26/is_newts_zero_gravity_sex_idea_any_good (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/26/is_newts_zero_gravity_sex_idea_any_good)
Quote from: jowcol on January 27, 2012, 06:08:26 AM
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/26/is_newts_zero_gravity_sex_idea_any_good (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/26/is_newts_zero_gravity_sex_idea_any_good)
I don't doubt he got that idea from watching Baron Harkonnen in the David Lynch Dune film.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2012, 06:11:43 AM
I don't doubt he got that idea from watching Baron Harkonnen in the David Lynch Dune film.
Hahaha! That's going to be joke of the day!! :D :D
Even the audience can't save Newt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/florida-republican-debate-even-the-audience-cant-save-gingrich-from-romney/2012/01/26/gIQAvGtKUQ_blog.html)Quote from: Jno BernsteinThere are a lot of Republican voters in South Carolina who told pollsters and reporters that they voted for Newt Gingrich because they believed he would defeat Barack Obama by humiliating him in debates.
I know the look many of them have on their faces tonight. It's the same look that House Republicans had on their faces at about this point in 1996, after a year of following Newt because they thought he had a legislative plan for defeating Bill Clinton. South Carolina Republicans are lucky; the snake oil they purchased isn't going to be around much longer. House Republicans had to put up with Newt's "leadership" for three more years.
Quote from: Jennifer RubinRage at the media is not a basis, at least not a rational one, for choosing a presidential candidate. In fact, it perpetuates the very qualities that render conservative candidates unappealing to independent voters. Angry and intemperate Republicans make for losing candidates.
Will Santorum overtake Gingrich?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2012, 09:27:52 AMWill Santorum overtake Gingrich?
Just be careful which "santorum" sites you visit.
Taking your word for it!
Supposedly, they were in my city, of all places. Even though it's nowhere-land, it's full of retired rednecks, so I can see why Republicans go here from time to time.
Interesting note from the 2008 Primary in NH--
My candidate of choice, Vermin Supreme ran as a republican.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHpFmshfwS4
John Edwards was afraid to debate him, but Ron Paul was open to several of his policies.
http://www.youtube.com/v/rji74B453JY&feature=related
Remember, although all politicians are Vermin, this man is Vermin Supreme!
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2012, 09:27:52 AM
Will Santorum overtake Gingrich? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/will-santorum-overtake-gingrich/2012/01/26/gIQA47z8UQ_blog.html)
Who gives a shit? ;D
Quote from: Greg on January 27, 2012, 10:26:01 AM
Supposedly, they were in my city, of all places. Even though it's nowhere-land, it's full of retired rednecks, so I can see why Republicans go here from time to time.
Rednecks don't retire, but their beverage sleeves wear thin . . . .
Quote from: Ataraxia on January 27, 2012, 10:31:30 AM
Who gives a shit? ;D
Dude, that's just the Bachmann-exhaustion setting in! ; )
Newt has lots of ideas. Inevitably some are good. Also, Hitler put Germany back to work and the Volkswagen is a cool car. Yet.....I have the faint suspicion that an occasional good idea isn't enough when you consider the whole package of rabblerousing, scapegoating and all around nastiness and treachery that Newt embodies. Am I being too pure? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) Shouldn't I take the bad with the good, take the moonbase and ignore the racism? I can't manage it, there's too much bad and too little good.
Besides, I don't vote for an individual, I vote for everything the individual brings in his wake. That's a revoltin' thought with Newt.
Newt was just endorsed by jailed ex-congressman Duke Cunningham. Hold on, now, this changes everything! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
The moonbase is a good example of why Newt is not a small government conservative. First, I've seen comments suggesting that this was really a pander to those people whose jobs are threatened by the Obama Administration decision to end the Shuttle program, something particularly pertinent to Central Florida. Second, this is where privatization could be effectively used: lease out the facilities at Cape Canaveral (or offer them for use after paying a fee each time) to those companies that are trying to organize private space flight. Let them set up moonbases if they want to.
But Newt can only think of the government doing it, in the same spirit as European explorers tried to conquer the entire world in the 16th through 19th centuries. Although this time there doesn't seem to be a native population whom the conquerors can exterminate through disease, reservations, etc. etc.
Newt is a big government conservative (meaning essentially an authoritarian type of conservative)--same as Romney, Santorum, and almost all the other GOP candidates have been this year--the reverse, in practice, of what the much vaunted Tea Party claims it wants.
So either the Tea Party has run out of steam, at least temporarily, or it was never more than an anti-Obama movement run by a GOP establishment trying to harness conservative anger to their own ends. Perhaps I'm cynical, but at the moment I opt for the second alternative.
The Tea Party's run out of steam: the kettle is punctured! : )
The bag has deflated :(
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 27, 2012, 06:27:41 PM
The moonbase is a good example of why Newt is not a small government conservative.
That maybe the best thing about him (it's a short list). The most important reason for being a small government conservative is to keep goods from spreading widely through society and diluting the power and authority of those who have them now. That's what small government is for. It's not well suited to creating a society of general prosperity, or keeping it.
For the purposes of political confrontation the conservative will argue otherwise but the mask slips from time to time and general welfare arguments are replaced by arguments about how sinful it is for everyone to get things they want. It follows from this that it isn't the failure of the welfare state that conservatives object to, but the success that it has, in the main, demonstrated. When will the day of reckoning come? That's a pretty good question if we're sinners in the hands of an angry god, or unicorn, or something. We're not, that is a government has no right to assume we are, and also we're not. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Jon Stewart on Newt's Moon Colony: "He Wants to Leave the Earth for a Younger Planet"
:-*
The moon is smaller so it can have a smaller government. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Read my lips, no Lunar Taxes!
If you want to understand Newt, read Robert Heinlein. It's all there: futurism, sex, libertarianism, more sex, moon colonies, some extra sex just because I'm patriotic and work hard.....(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cool.gif)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 27, 2012, 06:27:41 PM
Newt can only think of the government doing it, in the same spirit as European explorers tried to conquer the entire world in the 16th through 19th centuries.
That's not quite accurate, at least in the case of Spaniards. Most of their South-American expansion in the 16th century was the work of private adventurers, oftenly acting without, or even contrary to, governmental orders - the most famous of them being Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizaro.
Quote from: Florestan on January 28, 2012, 02:01:47 AM
That's not quite accurate, at least in the case of Spaniards. Most of their South-American expansion in the 16th century was the work of private adventurers, oftenly acting without, or even contrary to, governmental orders - the most famous of them being Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizaro.
And not just the Spaniards. Consider also the activities of the British and Dutch East India Companies.
So most of the worst depredations of colonialism were private enterprises? I guess you could add the slave trade in there, too. And the opium trade, too, right?
But what about Big Government, that takes away our freedom to, you know....buy and sell....things? It's still bad, right?
Quote from: drogulus on January 28, 2012, 04:19:51 AM
So most of the worst depredations some of the activities of colonialism were private enterprises?
Yes, but enterprises which enjoyed protective charters from the government : )
Quote from: karlhenning on January 28, 2012, 04:26:54 AM
Yes, but enterprises which enjoyed protective charters from the government : )
You mean big liberal welfare state government? No, small government issued charters and big humanist Enlightenment governments took them away. I don't think modern conservatives want to reintroduce slavery. What they want is to defeat the form of government that took it away from them.
Quote from: Velimir on January 28, 2012, 03:35:25 AM
And not just the Spaniards. Consider also the activities of the British and Dutch East India Companies.
Indeed. The Dutch East India Company and, more appropriately in this case: the West India Company, were private companies. Only in the 19th century colonialism became a matter of national concern.
Quote from: drogulus on January 27, 2012, 07:53:22 PM
That maybe the best thing about him (it's a short list). The most important reason for being a small government conservative is to keep goods from spreading widely through society and diluting the power and authority of those who have them now. That's what small government is for. It's not well suited to creating a society of general prosperity, or keeping it.
And big governments are even less suited to creating such a society and even more suited to keeping goods in the hands of people with power and authority, since it's easier with a big government to assert such control.
Think, for instance, of how businesses use the regulation systems, especially at state and local levels, to block or at least seriously hinder possible competitors, by helping put in place regulations that are easy for them to comply with because they have the equipment/capital/etc. but potential starts up do not.
Or to look at it from another perspective: the bigger the government, the more power is available to be misused by those with an interest to misuse it (meaning the "haves"); the smaller the government, the less less power available for misuse.
Quote
For the purposes of political confrontation the conservative will argue otherwise but the mask slips from time to time and general welfare arguments are replaced by arguments about how sinful it is for everyone to get things they want. It follows from this that it isn't the failure of the welfare state that conservatives object to, but the success that it has, in the main, demonstrated. When will the day of reckoning come? That's a pretty good question if we're sinners in the hands of an angry god, or unicorn, or something. We're not, that is a government has no right to assume we are, and also we're not. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
You're making the mistake of thinking that social conservatives actually belong in the same camp as economic conservatives--something many people do, especially since the social conservatives often try to foster the belief that they are small government conservatives. But they aren't. They believe in big government as much as you do--the only difference between you and them is in what areas of life you want government power to be applied. But for them economic conservatism is simply and add on to their real beliefs, subject to be jettisoned when it gets in the way.
And thank you to all of you for the corrections regarding the government ties of European explorers. I knew that--I was just speaking too hastily and off the cuff. But I might mention that the governments which gave the Dutch and British East India companies their charters were not small government as economic conservatives understand the term--the European governments were ready to interfere and regulate in economic matters as readily as "big government' today, or even more. The charters themselves are evidence of this--they not only established the companies, but in several cases granted them monopolies (or at least purported to do so)--the government was banning other traders for the benefit of its chosen few.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
The Tea Party's run out of steam: the kettle is punctured! : )
While I cannot stand most Democrats, I have no use for the Tea Party either.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 28, 2012, 06:16:28 PM
You're making the mistake of thinking that social conservatives actually belong in the same camp as economic conservatives--something many people do, especially since the social conservatives often try to foster the belief that they are small government conservatives. But they aren't. They believe in big government as much as you do--the only difference between you and them is in what areas of life you want government power to be applied. But for them economic conservatism is simply and add on to their real beliefs, subject to be jettisoned when it gets in the way.
YES! I totally agree. I'd also say the most "conservatives" from a foreign policy perspective favor a strong defense, which , since it is funded through taxes and operated at the national governmnt is anything but small government.
In my opinion, using these criteria, a true libertarian would fail the litmus test for being a social conservative or foreign policy conservative.
Quote from: Christo on January 28, 2012, 07:43:09 AMIndeed. The Dutch East India Company and, more appropriately in this case: the West India Company, were private companies. Only in the 19th century colonialism became a matter of national concern.
For instance, the British government only went into India after super-efficient private enterprise had made a mess of things. Government bail-outs yet again!
Quote from: Todd on January 24, 2012, 06:29:31 AMIn related news, I was shocked to learn that Mitt Romney is rich, at least based on his tax returns.
Didn't you know this competition is multi-millionaires only?
Quote from: eyeresist on January 29, 2012, 06:20:31 PM
Didn't you know this competition is multi-millionaires only?
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. ;)
Quote from: Greg on January 29, 2012, 07:46:57 PM
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. ;)
Yeah, I guess you're right. In the Wunderland of US politics, one can't always be sure :(
"The Mormons are the Chosen People. And the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C."
Well, this doesn't sound creepy at all ???
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/singleton/
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 28, 2012, 06:16:28 PM
And big governments are even less suited to creating such a society and even more suited to keeping goods in the hands of people with power and authority, since it's easier with a big government to assert such control.
Then there are no prosperous societies. How'd that happen?
But there
are prosperous societies and
all of them have big governments that grew as the societies grew and developed. This is something that conservatives and probably many liberals don't understand. Government doesn't have a proper size considered in the abstract, because the success of a society is not separated from its government. The conservative habit of seeing the government as a foreign growth like a cancer is stupid and defeatist. It's a fundamental conceptual error. Any government good enough to play a proper role in an advanced society will have to be "too big". Other than the usual pejorative meaning, "too big" has none. Liberals are quite justified in ignoring the size of government. They don't favor "big government", they favor government that does what they want done.
About the differences between social and economic conservatism, the divide is significant in Republican circles but not generally. Most conservatives lean one way or another but favor both. Libertarians are not conservatives and in spite of their recent prominence don't count for much. They are soon headed back into the obscurity they deserve.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 28, 2012, 06:16:28 PM
Think, for instance, of how businesses use the regulation systems, especially at state and local levels, to block or at least seriously hinder possible competitors, by helping put in place regulations that are easy for them to comply with because they have the equipment/capital/etc. but potential starts up do not.
Or to look at it from another perspective: the bigger the government, the more power is available to be misused by those with an interest to misuse it (meaning the "haves"); the smaller the government, the less less power available for misuse.
I have thought about that point. The house burned down next door, so let's abolish the fire department. Criminals cleverly outwit the police, which shows the folly of "big government" efforts to catch them.
Doctors shouldn't anesthetize patients. It gives them too much power.
The argument that government, that foreign body you hate so much, will be given too much power if it's used to do things we want is not convincing. It depends on the thesis that governments can't be controlled, which is bizarre. What are conservatives trying to do, prove that they can't control government? I know that! They prove it all the time. Now they can't be trusted with the finances of the country, which used to be their selling point. These "fiscal conservatives" have tried to destroy the economy to prove a point. Government can't be trusted? No, the point they succeed in proving is they can't be trusted.
Conservatives insist that under "big government" the poor who have less power will be worse off, not better. This is how anti-empiricism bites them badly, since the social democracies have less poverty and more income equality. See? If you start by asking which societies are best to be low income in, you know the answer. The answer doesn't change because you think big government is bad or has too much power.
But conservatives fail to treat an obviously empirical question as a matter of fact, and instead they opine about how well off the poor will be, as though we didn't know the answer to an abstract question, or that we're powerless to adjust programs to make them work better. That's pure dogmatism.
Why not try to get the answer (easy enough) instead of acting as though a warning must be issued (the poor will be worse off if the government tries to help). Who's in a position to warn who? I don't listen to warnings from people who have so little sense. Look at your society! How does it really work, not how should it work according to some ideal that's never been practiced?
Quote from: Lethevich on January 29, 2012, 08:43:31 PM
"The Mormons are the Chosen People. And the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C."
Well, this doesn't sound creepy at all ???
Super-creepy. Of course, I shouldn't blame Mitt for all the wacky ideas slung around him. There were some pretty creepy notions slung around Dubya, too . . . whom I preferred to disagree with on his own merits.
And there's deep creepiness out there yet, with (a) all the people who are convinced that Obama is an extra-national Muslim, combined with (b) all of those who feel in their heart that, if Obama were a Muslim, it would be horrible, horrible, horrible.
Quote from: Aaron BlakeHis opponents could run out of money. Or it could become so clear that he will win a majority of delegates that his opponents retreat.
Not when the opponents are Newt and Ron Paul, they won't retreat. RTWT here.
Quote from: Jennifer RubinPerhaps it is frustration, especially among talk-show hosts, at not being able to derail Romney. Maybe some shrill bloggers understand that Romney threatens to prove that they are less in tune with Republicans than the "squishy" Republican candidates and officeholders. And maybe conservative political journalists have more in common with their mainstream counterparts than they'd like to admit — a suspicion of wealth, ignorance of the business world and a fixation on the candidates' interaction with them. After all, Romney never really courted and flattered conservative pundits the way Newt Gingrich did (especially by bashing the mainstream media competition).
RTWT here.
Talking about the pros and cons of free enterprise vs government control in business is a bit naive when both parties are essentially nothing more then criminal rackets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCQ8NGfcCE&feature=related
Its pretty pointless to talk about fiscal conservatism when you have Al Capone running the show.
Trump's latest publicity stunt: two views.
Jennifer Rubin
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-trump-trap/2012/02/02/gIQA2fGdkQ_blog.html)
Jno Capehart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/trump-to-endorse-romney/2011/03/04/gIQAxfWekQ_blog.html)
Santorum Tells Sick Kid Not To Complain About $1 Million Drug Costs Because People Pay $900 For An iPad (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/)
Kinda weird how "being evil" is now considered an admirable political ideology.
After reading that and some of the comments... if I get sick and need medication that only rich people can afford, it sounds like there's a possibility of buying drugs from Canada online. Or am I just supposed to die?
Oh, wait, why'd I ask? Just look it up! ;)
canadadrugs.com
If you have Web of Trust, it's an orange color, but read the user reviews, and you'll see pages and pages of positive reviews. Just one more awesome thing about the internet. 8)
Quote from: Lethevich on February 03, 2012, 09:41:16 PMKinda weird how "being evil" is now considered an admirable political ideology.
Hmm, how exactly is he being "evil"? Is anyone who disagrees with you now evil? Since the article you linked is hardly objective, or complete, it's hard to tell what really happened, and while I think it's safe to assume that Santorum blustered on, it's ridiculous to throw around the word evil in this case.
Oh, and you may want to question claims such as a $1 million per year cost to treat schizophrenia. Seriously, are people so gullible as to believe
that? Really? How come a 30 day supply lists for $600 online from a US pharmacy? (I found it in 20 seconds.) In the world I live in, that translates into about $7200 a year. Even if the kid is super crazy and requires triple dosage, that's a far cry from
$1 million!!! (Say in one's best Dr Evil voice.)
Quote from: Lethevich on February 03, 2012, 09:41:16 PM
Kinda weird how "being evil" is now considered an admirable political ideology.
I don't think that Santorum is being evil, but I do think he is being stupid and insensitive. The people who are buying ipads also can afford expensive medication (especially since they also most likely have insurance). The people that can't afford that medicine are also people that would consider an ipad a luxury they can't afford. Ipads are for the upper middle class, the lower class and the lower middle class are not "entitled" they're simply desperate.
He is right that pharmaceutical companies need to make a profit, and if they couldn't that drug wouldn't exist in the first place. That article vilified him, here is a more neutral quote from the original source:
"Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy's case, but he also believed in the marketplace."
He was saying that bigger picture more people will be helped if the free market worked for drug companies:
" I sympathize with these compassionate cases. ... I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don't have incentives, they won't make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don't."
I think that there needs to be a better solution for lower income households, but I agree with Santorum's point even if it sounded callous and stupid.
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
Oh, and you may want to question claims such as a $1 million per year cost to treat schizophrenia. Seriously, are people so gullible as to believe that? Really? How come a 30 day supply lists for $600 online from a US pharmacy? (I found it in 20 seconds.) In the world I live in, that translates into about $7200 a year. Even if the kid is super crazy and requires triple dosage, that's a far cry from $1 million!!! (Say in one's best Dr Evil voice.)
It would have been nice if they told exactly which medication he needed. $1 million does seem like an exaggeration of any kind, though if he had some rare form of schizophrenia, who knows (I sure have no idea).
Still, $600 a month is outrageous. No one I know could afford to pay that much each month- $600 is almost entirely what I make each month, and even if I worked full time, all of the money left over would be going towards gas and car insurance, with maybe $50 extra after that (I've worked at the same place for 4 years). How would you eat and pay rent?
Quote from: DavidW on February 04, 2012, 09:34:31 AM
I don't think that Santorum is being evil, but I do think he is being stupid and insensitive. The people who are buying ipads also can afford expensive medication (especially since they also most likely have insurance). The people that can't afford that medicine are also people that would consider an ipad a luxury they can't afford. Ipads are for the upper middle class, the lower class and the lower middle class are not "entitled" they're simply desperate.
He is right that pharmaceutical companies need to make a profit, and if they couldn't that drug wouldn't exist in the first place. That article vilified him, here is a more neutral quote from the original source:
"Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy's case, but he also believed in the marketplace."
He was saying that bigger picture more people will be helped if the free market worked for drug companies:
" I sympathize with these compassionate cases. ... I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don't have incentives, they won't make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don't."
I think that there needs to be a better solution for lower income households, but I agree with Santorum's point even if it sounded callous and stupid.
I read a comment that makes a point worthy of being looked up and verified if it's true or not: that the drug companies spend twice as much on advertising than on research. Another comment states (again, have no idea if it's true or not) that tax dollars are often used to fund research on drugs at universities.
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2012, 02:21:46 PMthat the drug companies spend twice as much on advertising than on research.
I thought it was higher than that. So?
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 03:10:32 PM
I thought it was higher than that. So?
I think you know what I'm getting at... if they have that much money, why don't they spend it all on research instead of advertising?
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2012, 03:53:20 PMI think you know what I'm getting at... if they have that much money, why don't they spend it all on research instead of advertising?
I know what you're getting at, but my question remains. And I have a new one: why would or should
any company do what you suggest? They must earn returns for shareholders. Advertising helps achieve that goal.
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 04:37:07 PM
I know what you're getting at, but my question remains. And I have a new one: why would or should any company do what you suggest? They must earn returns for shareholders. Advertising helps achieve that goal.
Not saying what they should or shouldn't do, just wondering about Santorum's point. He makes it sound like research is the only reason why drug prices are so high; but obviously, there's something more to it than that if they have enough extra money to run so many ads.
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2012, 04:57:42 PMNot saying what they should or shouldn't do
Yes, you are. Your prior post, and this most recent, imply or state that pharma companies should drop all advertising for R&D. I maintain they should not. Yep, they are profitable - that's rather the point of patents and the temporary monopoly they bestow, wouldn't you agree? - but advertising helps reap some profits.
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
Hmm, how exactly is he being "evil"?
It was an offhand exaggeration wondering about why his language is considered acceptable or even desirable. You don't treat victims that way in everyday life, and on stage shouldn't be different. It kind of sounds like he realised 'oh wait, my audience might have issues with what a jerk I am' when he tacks on the "I sympathise" part, and the tone reveals a major lack of empathy which given how often it comes up with this person
does make him seem seem pretty f-ed up :-X
Quote from: Lethevich on February 04, 2012, 05:24:22 PMwhy his language is considered acceptable
To be honest, this is a terrifying clause in a sentence. Who deems what is and is not "acceptable"? You have to look at everything Santorum said, and the full context. Political speech - and
everything a person running for office says in a public setting is political speech - ought not to be held to the same standard of 'decency' in everyday life. (
Oh, John, that is terrible, I wish I could help.) Who cares about this specific person when it comes to public policy? Public policy is about the
public, not one pathetic (in a strict and not pejorative sense) person.
That's not to say I like or endorse Santorum - I loathe him, actually, for a variety of reasons - but public health policy is something a bit bigger than one schizo and his/her $7K a year needs.
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 05:05:51 PM
Yes, you are. Your prior post, and this most recent, imply or state that pharma companies should drop all advertising for R&D. I maintain they should not. Yep, they are profitable - that's rather the point of patents and the temporary monopoly they bestow, wouldn't you agree? - but advertising helps reap some profits.
The fundamentals of elementary Capitalism are at stake here. If it weren't for advertising, the Capitalist Economy would not exist. If all advertising was 'dropped' in the pharmaceutical sector, their businesses would not exist, or at best R&D with less feedback would drop to snails pace, no matter how much was thrown at it. It is a delicate balancing act, savoury or not.
And that is my great political speech for the month. $:)
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 05:05:51 PM
Yes, you are. Your prior post, and this most recent, imply or state that pharma companies should drop all advertising for R&D. I maintain they should not. Yep, they are profitable - that's rather the point of patents and the temporary monopoly they bestow, wouldn't you agree? - but advertising helps reap some profits.
I'm just questioning it. If the advertising helps to fund the research, then good. Otherwise, I hope they are actually doing something good with the money...
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
Not saying what they should or shouldn't do, just wondering about Santorum's point. He makes it sound like research is the only reason why drug prices are so high; but obviously, there's something more to it than that if they have enough extra money to run so many ads.
I do believe there may be other reasons why drug prices are high in the US. Since every pharma sells its drugs worldwide, is it possible that we are actually subsidizing the rest of the world? For years, Japanese tourists flocked to NYC to buy Japanese electronics, which cost far more in their country of manufacturing. Could it be that when it come to drugs, we Americans are doing the same the Japanese were doing in electronics?
Quote from: Coopmv on February 04, 2012, 07:53:04 PM
I do believe there may be other reasons why drug prices are high in the US. Since every pharma sells its drugs worldwide, is it possible that we are actually subsidizing the rest of the world? For years, Japanese tourists flocked to NYC to buy Japanese electronics, which cost far more in their country of manufacturing. Could it be that when it come to drugs, we Americans are doing the same the Japanese were doing in electronics?
That's what several of the comments I've read said, so you may very well be correct.
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 05:34:45 PM
Political speech - and everything a person running for office says in a public setting is political speech - ought not to be held to the same standard of 'decency' in everyday life.
First you criticize Greg for telling pharmaceutical companies what they should do. Now
you are telling us what we ought to do. Not very consistent a position, ain't it? ;D
Quote
Who cares about this specific person when it comes to public policy? Public policy is about the public, not one pathetic (in a strict and not pejorative sense) person.
It can be inferred from the above that it doesn't matter if one goes to hell because of a public policy as long as millions other benefit from it. Is this really what you think?
Quote from: Florestan on February 05, 2012, 07:04:03 AMFirst you criticize Greg for telling pharmaceutical companies what they should do. Now you are telling us what we ought to do. Not very consistent a position, ain't it?
Two things here. First, I'm not criticizing Greg for his opinions, I'm merely questioning some of his critiques and the assumptions underlying them. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency." Political speech is treated differently than other speech in the US - the whole First Amendment thing. Am I to take it that you think political speech should be more controlled?
And of course, if you think about it, I'm saying let pharma companies do their thing and let Rick Santorum do his thing. That's actually quite consistent.
Quote from: Florestan on February 05, 2012, 07:04:03 AMIt can be inferred from the above that it doesn't matter if one goes to hell because of a public policy as long as millions other benefit from it. Is this really what you think?
First, your question assumes one believes in things like heaven and hell. Not everyone does, and to be honest, trotting this out in the context of schizophrenia medication is rather silly. Really, will someone go to hell if a person with schizophrenia does not get Abilify? (One must also wonder if there are alternative treatments, or if only the name brand will do.) Second, sometimes public policy, which applies to the public in general, will not help every one in every case. Sorry, that's the way it is.
Quote from: Coopmv on February 04, 2012, 07:53:04 PMCould it be that when it come to drugs, we Americans are doing the same the Japanese were doing in electronics?
That's absolutely the case.
Quote from: Todd on February 05, 2012, 09:18:57 AM
That's absolutely the case.
canadadrugs.com, canadadrugs.com! :D
Quote from: DavidW on February 04, 2012, 09:34:31 AM"Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy's case, but he also believed in the marketplace."
As with lawyers, plumbers and the funeral industry, big pharma knows you can take people for a fortune when they're in desperate straits. Yay unregulated free market!
Quote from: Scots John on February 04, 2012, 05:41:49 PMIf all advertising was 'dropped' in the pharmaceutical sector, their businesses would not exist, or at best R&D with less feedback would drop to snails pace
Because sick people wouldn't buy medicine if it wasn't advertised?
Quote from: Todd on February 05, 2012, 09:18:57 AM
Two things here. First, I'm not criticizing Greg for his opinions, I'm merely questioning some of his critiques and the assumptions underlying them.
That's fair anough and I have no problem with that.
Quote
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency."
I mean
your consistency. You say, rightly, that Greg should not suggest pharmaceutical companies what they should or should not do. And then you say
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2012, 05:34:45 PM
Political speech - and everything a person running for office says in a public setting is political speech - ought not to be held to the same standard of 'decency' in everyday life.
thus clearly suggesting what I, or Greg, or Sara, or anyone for that matter, ought to do or not. So bottom line, either you grant nobody - yourself included - any right to tell others what to do or not do, in which case the above quote is plainly inconsistent with that, or you grant such right to some - yourself included - but not to everybody, in which case the position itself is plainly inconsistent.
Quote
Political speech is treated differently than other speech in the US - the whole First Amendment thing. Am I to take it that you think political speech should be more controlled?
My point was not about political speech but about
your "speech".
Quote
First, your question assumes one believes in things like heaven and hell. Not everyone does
Your hair-splitting is well-known to anyone who has had even the slightest exchange with you, but don't you think it's not going to get you further than that? Substitute "being left with poor or no options" for "going to hell", if you are so averse to a common metaphor which has ceased long ago to carry any specific religious message.
Quote
sometimes public policy, which applies to the public in general, will not help every one in every case.
Thank you for posting a truism. Yet there is a difference between "not helping" and "harming" - mind you, I'm not talking about any specific policy, case or person: it's a matter of principle.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 05, 2012, 05:08:33 PMAs with lawyers, plumbers and the funeral industry, big pharma knows you can take people for a fortune when they're in desperate straits. Yay unregulated free market!
I assume you did not choose the four industries at random, given that all of them engage in uncompetitive practices. Doctors, too, for that matter.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 05, 2012, 05:08:33 PMBecause sick people wouldn't buy medicine if it wasn't advertised?
They may not buy drug X if they don't know about it. That may be a problem if drug X is better than drug A for treating disease N. But even if they will buy drug X, so what? Non state-owned pharmaceutical companies must earn returns for shareholders. Advertising is known to increase sales and thus profits and thus returns to shareholders. That's a good thing.
Quote from: Florestan on February 05, 2012, 10:56:01 PMSo bottom line, either you grant nobody - yourself included - any right to tell others what to do or not do, in which case the above quote is plainly inconsistent with that, or you grant such right to some - yourself included - but not to everybody, in which case the position itself is plainly inconsistent.
Utter nonsense. My reply was specifically in response to someone questioning why Santorum's speech was considered acceptable. My response is that political speech ought not to be constrained by such considerations. Anyone's political speech. So Lethevich can ask the question, I can reply, Greg can write whatever, as can you. I'm not telling anyone what they should do, I'm merely stating that political speech ought not to be held to some arbitrary standard of decency or acceptability, whatever those are exactly. It's a pretty basic principle actually. If you don't find it consistent, that's not my issue.
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2012, 06:49:56 AM
They may not buy drug X if they don't know about it. That may be a problem if drug X is better than drug A for treating disease N. But even if they will buy drug X, so what? Non state-owned pharmaceutical companies must earn returns for shareholders. Advertising is known to increase sales and thus profits and thus returns to shareholders. That's a good thing.
I thought stuff like this was up to doctors, not people. Just regular medication that anyone can buy is a totally different story, but when it comes to expensive prescription medication, usually that's up to the doctor. Or do ads help sales in the cases where doctors give you a choice...? (I've rarely ever had to go to the doctor in my life, so I honestly have no clue).
Quote from: Greg on February 06, 2012, 06:56:18 AMOr do ads help sales in the cases where doctors give you a choice...?
Advertising "helps" in a couple ways. First, it makes consumers aware of drugs so that they may demand said meds. Viagra and other ED drugs are rather obvious examples. They apparently work quite well, but doctors would hardly be prescribing huge amounts of the drugs were it not for the PR blitz. ED is certainly an issue for the men who have it, though it's hard to say that it is a serious public health issue. Second, drug sales reps travel around peddling their wares to doctors directly, trying to convince doctors that drug X is better than drug Y, or that drug Z is brand new a treats a heretofore untreatable ailment. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Some of the sales practices have been questioned (eg, implications of kickbacks), and some medical organizations ban direct doctor contact with pharma reps (eg, some big HMOs). Word has got to get out some way, though. I'm not a doctor, but I think it's safe to assume that doctors do keep abreast of developments in their field, but from a pharma company's perspective, some ads and sales reps may help their cause. I'm sure there are doctors on the forum who can provide much more insight into the process.
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2012, 06:49:56 AMThey may not buy drug X if they don't know about it. That may be a problem if drug X is better than drug A for treating disease N. But even if they will buy drug X, so what? Non state-owned pharmaceutical companies must earn returns for shareholders. Advertising is known to increase sales and thus profits and thus returns to shareholders. That's a good thing.
If for you "good" is synonymous with "most profitable". In strict medical terms, the only advertising necessary is medical information directed purely at doctors, druggists and hospital suppliers. Pretty much everything beyond that is either simple bribery of medical officials, or a basic snake oil pitch for the suckers (do YOU suffer from Restless Leg Syndrome?). Both of these are immoral.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 06, 2012, 03:21:18 PMIf for you "good" is synonymous with "most profitable".
When discussing for-profit firms, "most profitable" is an unambiguously good thing. You proclamations of morality smack of just a wee bit of sanctimony. Perhaps you have a business model for a successful
and righteous pharma company?
So expecting moral behaviour = sanctimonious.
I guess, given the state of US politics, there's no point trying to hold anyone to account for bribing and swindling people.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 06, 2012, 06:29:52 PMSo expecting moral behaviour = sanctimonious.
It can, yes.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 06, 2012, 06:29:52 PMI guess, given the state of US politics, there's no point trying to hold anyone to account for bribing and swindling people.
It is true that only the US has such issues. Other countries have completely eliminated such behavior. Certainly the Australian government makes sure that mining deals with the Chinese benefit the whole population without disproportionate benefits accruing to specific companies and connected people, and it makes sure that environmental concerns are top priority and no corners are cut, right?
As to the old bribing and swindling and pharma companies, well, if your only response is knee-jerk, you never see a need to dig any deeper. As stated before some large healthcare delivery companies strictly forbid doctors from interacting with sales reps. They do it for more business reasons more than "moral" reasons, though, so that means they are probably bad, too. Yes, yes, pharmaceutical companies devote literally tens of billions of dollars to R&D annually, and yes, the large majority of the research ends up going nowhere, costing billions, and yes, some of the drugs actually help people by, you know, treating illnesses, but just who do the management of those companies think they are, trying to earn a profit by leveraging salesmanship and advertising? Pharma companies are clearly bad. (Hell, all for-profit companies are bad.) National governments should take over all such research. That will clean up the industry and deliver drugs people need at prices they can afford in the most timely manner possible.
It should be noted that the above applies to
only US pharma firms, by the way. The industry is global, with European giants, but only US firms display the bad traits while the European giants are models of righteousness. Right? I mean, if that's not the case, that would have other implications.
Wow, things are much easier when one applies such a filter!
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2012, 06:56:59 PMCertainly the Australian government makes sure that mining deals with the Chinese benefit the whole population without disproportionate benefits accruing to specific companies and connected people,
Funny you should mention that..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2012, 06:56:59 PMYes, yes, pharmaceutical companies devote literally tens of billions of dollars to R&D annually, and yes, the large majority of the research ends up going nowhere, costing billions, and yes, some of the drugs actually help people by, you know, treating illnesses, but just who do the management of those companies think they are, trying to earn a profit by leveraging salesmanship and advertising?
A third of medical research funds in the US come from the government, together with charities and private individuals, who are no doubt massive suckers for putting the results into the public domain and not wringing every cent out of it they can.
"leveraging salesmanship and advertising" - these are pleasant euphemisms for unethical behavior. But if it's profitable, how can I possibly criticise? And it's sort of legal-
ish - or at least no-one of influence within reach of a lobbyist actively tries to stop it (the lobby spent $168 million in 2007 (http://www.iwatchnews.org/2008/06/24/5779/record-year-pharmaceutical-lobby-07), which must have paid for an awful lot of "education on the issues") - so why should anyone ever feel any sort of niggling doubt that abusing and manipulating millions of people might be something ...shameful?
[ASIN]0743247442[/ASIN]
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2012, 06:56:59 PMIt should be noted that the above applies to only US pharma firms, by the way. The industry is global, with European giants, but only US firms display the bad traits while the European giants are models of righteousness. Right? I mean, if that's not the case, that would have other implications.
Would it imply that pharma companies can sell their drugs at affordable prices (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12676) and still make massive profits (http://www.eaepc.org/parallel_distribution/myth.php?n=2#pharmaceutical)?
EDIT: Apologies to everyone for derailing the thread :D I'm going to shut up now.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 06, 2012, 09:41:50 PMFunny you should mention that.....
Isn't that the tax that brought down Rudd and resulted in downward changes to the proposed tax afterward? Nope, no political chicanery there, or hints of caving to corporate interests. And certainly environmental concerns are being attended to in an efficacious manner.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 06, 2012, 09:41:50 PMWould it imply that pharma companies can sell their drugs at affordable prices (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12676) and still make massive profits (http://www.eaepc.org/parallel_distribution/myth.php?n=2#pharmaceutical)?
Let's take a look at the first thing that pops up on the first link you provided, shall we?
"EU countries closely regulate pharmaceutical prices whereas the U.S. does not. This paper shows how price constraints affect the profitability, stock returns, and R&D spending of EU and U.S. firms. Compared to EU firms, U.S. firms are more profitable, earn higher stock returns, and spend more on research and development (R&D). Some differences have increased over time. In 1986, EU pharmaceutical R&D exceeded U.S. R&D by about 24 percent, but by 2004, EU R&D trailed U.S. R&D by about 15 percent. During these 19 years, U.S. R&D spending grew at a real annual compound rate of 8.8 percent, while EU R&D spending grew at a real 5.4 percent rate. Results show that EU consumers enjoyed much lower pharmaceutical price inflation, however, at a cost of 46 fewer new medicines introduced by EU firms and 1680 fewer EU research jobs."
Yes, indeed, drug prices in the EU are lower. They are also lower in Canada, presumably Australia, and a host of other countries. And EU firms are very profitable.
However, that's the here and now. Pharma firms are about the future, too, especially as patents have relatively short lives, especially compared to the large capital investment in new drugs (around $1.7 billion per drug, if memory serves). Based on the evidence you provided, EU firms will only have a bright future if they acquire other firms that engage in R&D, as they have done in the last decade. (It didn't used to be called GlaxoSmithKline, for instance.) US firms are engaged in more R&D, which means more drugs in the pipeline, which means more long term profits for US firms. As was mentioned previously in this thread (I think it was this thread), the US in effect subsidizes the rest of the world in terms of new drug development. I'd have to look into the amount of R&D funding that comes from non-corporate sectors, but assuming the one-third figure is accurate, well, good.
So, eyeresist, what exactly is your prescription for a profitable and righteous drug industry? If it can't be profitable, what is your prescription for an effective and righteous drug industry? You like to throw up lots of stats, but how do you address the key one of R&D? Because make no mistake, once patents expire, the Indian generic drug makers are going to devour the market.
Michelle Bachmann sez, America, you had your chance, but you scorned perfection! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/michele-bachmann-was-perfect-said-bachmann/2012/02/06/gIQAhxbSwQ_blog.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 07, 2012, 08:47:49 AMMichelle Bachmann sez, America, you had your chance, but you scorned perfection! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/michele-bachmann-was-perfect-said-bachmann/2012/02/06/gIQAhxbSwQ_blog.html)
She could still get the VP slot . . .
Be still, O my heart!
Perhaps she could pray the deficit away once in such high office.
What went wrong for Mitt Romney in Colorado? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0208/What-went-wrong-for-Mitt-Romney-in-Colorado)
I was just looking at # delegates breakdown... we have 2100 or so left to go having allocated less than 200! omg this is such a slow process isn't it!? Absolutely anybody could still win at this point! :o
In a sense, yes, but monies will dry up for them what lack mo mint 'em.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2012, 05:21:56 AM
In a sense, yes, but monies will dry up for them what lack mo mint 'em.
Leaving just Romney! :D
Zackly! I'm the only one who is 'electable' and who's got the dough to stick it through; suck it up, and vote for me, Republicans!
Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
Zackly! I'm the only one who is 'electable' and who's got the dough to stick it through; suck it up, and vote for me, Republicans!
That is why Santorum had a point, he runs on having more dough than the rest... but he'll get steamrolled by Obama who is sure to have more money than God! ;D
If Santorum can survive Romney, though, the GOP electorate may be more energized.
Still, either way, I think it does break for the incumbent in November.
Quote from: DavidW on February 09, 2012, 05:38:38 AMThat is why Santorum had a point, he runs on having more dough than the rest... but he'll get steamrolled by Obama who is sure to have more money than God!
Money is critical. It's one of the key elements to staying in and winning elections, though it's not the only thing. (Santorum would be soundly beaten for a variety of reasons beyond just lack of funds.) In the current Republican field, only Romney can come close to matching Obama in fund raising. Only a couple weeks ago, Romney's Super PAC - or, rather, the Super PAC that supports Romney but is not affiliated with the campaign - was expecting to be able to raise and spend on the order of $350-400 million. Now that Obama did the (unexpected!) flip-flop on Super PACs, he'll have a large Super PAC war chest backing him, along with his ample traditional campaign funds. Clearly the general election will top $1 billion. Things are so out of control that spending may even get close to what Americans spent on Halloween costumes last year ($2.2 billion). The horror.
If employment keeps on ticking up, it will be harder to beat Obama. But if any party can blow good, or at least improving, economic news, it's the Democrats. Look at Al Gore. Yes, yes, he won the popular vote, but by a small margin given the good economic times, and the electoral strategy was not what it should be. I'm assuming Obama and his team learned those lessons well.
Quote from: Todd on February 09, 2012, 06:42:50 AM
. . . But if any party can blow good, or at least improving, economic news, it's the Democrats. Look at Al Gore. Yes, yes, he won the popular vote, but by a small margin given the good economic times, and the electoral strategy was not what it should be. I'm assuming Obama and his team learned those lessons well.
Good point. And we shall see.
Yup some good points there.
Meanwhile: O Mittster — some refreshing cold water from Geo Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-need-more-than-rhetoric-on-defense/2012/02/07/gIQA5SF1zQ_story.html?hpid=z2).
Did you see that congress actually worked together to pass that bill to ban insider trading!? Shocking! :o
Quote from: DavidW on February 09, 2012, 08:22:52 AM
Did you see that congress actually worked together to pass that bill to ban insider trading!? Shocking! :o
Hadn't seen that — was just reading that Congress have tweaked their peak (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/congress-finds-a-new-home-in-the-doghouse/2012/02/08/gIQABxOF0Q_blog.html)!Quote from: Aaron Blake. . . Congress's approval rating has actually hit a new low of 10 percent, despite some positive signs for the economy recently.
That's down from the previous record of 11 percent, set just two months ago. Meanwhile, a record-high 86 percent of Americans continue to say they disapprove of Congress's job performance.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2012, 08:17:26 AMMeanwhile: O Mittster — some refreshing cold water from Geo Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-need-more-than-rhetoric-on-defense/2012/02/07/gIQA5SF1zQ_story.html?hpid=z2).
Obama's foreign policy has been very good, much better than his domestic policy, and he will be hard to attack on this front. We're winding down wars, still killing our enemies, and adjusting our troop deployments to meet new geopolitical reality, all while slowing the growth of defense spending, if not actually cutting it. Tough to beat that, unless actual spending cuts are thrown in. Will's piece was very good, much better than Kagan's neocon manifesto of a week or two ago.
Quote from: DavidW on February 09, 2012, 08:22:52 AMDid you see that congress actually worked together to pass that bill to ban insider trading!?
Somehow, I think there are some loopholes, or at least vaguely worded passages, that any lawyer - which most member of Congress are - could take advantage of. Want some real reform in this area (assuming it's needed), require all members of Congress and all senior executive branch employees to use blind trusts during their time in office. It is good election year politics, I do admit.
Mitt Romney practices homelessness to become "more in touch with the people." (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i104300)
Quote from: Todd on February 07, 2012, 07:01:21 AMIsn't that the tax that brought down Rudd and resulted in downward changes to the proposed tax afterward?
Rudd was brought down because he backed away from pushing carbon trading legislation through parliament, one of the mandates he was elected on. The mining tax was one of the sticks the opposition beat him with as he retreated.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 10, 2012, 12:26:02 AMRudd was brought down because he backed away from pushing carbon trading legislation through parliament, one of the mandates he was elected on. The mining tax was one of the sticks the opposition beat him with as he retreated.
From what I've read, the MRRT is lower than the proposed RSPT that preceded it, and applies only to companies that earn over $75 million in profit, and even then is contingent upon earnings being a certain percentage over the long term Australian sovereign interest rate, or something to that effect. True, false? It's also my understanding that the RSPT was to be applied to all extractive industries, whereas the MRRT is, in effect, more limited. True, false? And some estimates I've read on the MRRT conclude that it may not raise as much revenue as feared/hoped for, depending on one's viewpoint, with some estimates at around $1.8 billion a year, though I believe the Australian government estimates are higher. The ten year decrease in revenue as a result of adopting the MRRT instead of the RSPT is in the tens of billions of dollars per even the Australian Treasury. So after Rudd left, for whatever reason or reasons, it appears that a tax fiercely opposed by a big industry was altered and cut back significantly before being implemented. On the plus side, there's more revenue. On the negative side, it sure looks like a giant industry used its muscle to get a big reduction. So Australian politics are significantly different from the rest of the world's how again?
Quote from: Todd on February 10, 2012, 07:24:24 AMSo after Rudd left, for whatever reason or reasons, it appears that a tax fiercely opposed by a big industry was altered and cut back significantly before being implemented. On the plus side, there's more revenue. On the negative side, it sure looks like a giant industry used its muscle to get a big reduction. So Australian politics are significantly different from the rest of the world's how again?
The above facts are correct. Nonetheless, it remains a tax on "super" profits by non-Australian mining companies. Admittedly a populist gesture (attempting to deflect criticism for failure of carbon trading bills) that backfired politically.
Quote from: Brad KnickerbockerBut in a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) national poll of usual Republican primary voters, released Saturday, Santorum is at 38 percent to 23 percent for Romney, 17 percent for Gingrich, and 13 percent for Paul.
RTWT here.
The phrase "usual Republican primary voters" is of course the key. Primary voters of both parties are often the true believers.
I can't see Santorum taking the nomination, but if he managed to, I'll bet Obama would be celebrating Christmas early.
All good points.
National Review to the Newt: Pack a lunch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/national-review-to-newt-gingrich-drop-out/2012/02/13/gIQAVfnsAR_blog.html)
Not strictly on topic, but could it be that an irate social conservative was also in the West Indies? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-breyer-and-wife-robbed-by-machete-wielding-man-in-west-indies/2012/02/13/gIQA7GxaBR_story.html?hpid=z3)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 13, 2012, 05:12:27 AM
RTWT here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0212/Santorum-opens-wide-lead-over-Romney-in-latest-poll).
Another weird thing about the USA: the Christian Science Monitor is, in the scheme of things, a serious news source.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 13, 2012, 02:08:00 PM
Another weird thing about the USA: the Christian Science Monitor is, in the scheme of things, a serious news source.
Always has been and deserves it.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 13, 2012, 02:32:20 PM
Always has been and deserves it.
[2] they seem a pretty professional outfit, and long-lived too.
Their articles are well written and informative.
I suspect the Washington Post used this picture because Santorum's head blocked the word "for"
(http://img3.wpdigital.net/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/02/14/Production/Daily/A-Section/Images/Santorum_2012_0d005.jpg)
Haha that is hilarious jowcol!! :D :D
Rick Santorum leads in Ohio poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-santorum-leads-in-ohio-poll/2012/02/15/gIQABHwWFR_blog.html)
And Santorum is "leading or matching" Romney in the polls in Michigan, at this point.
If Ricky gets the nod, I'm going to spend a good amount of time surfing the net to find anti-Santorum ads. They're going to get nasty!
Of course, if Romney gets the nod, anti-Obama ads will get nasty. His Super PAC has the man who brought us Willie Horton!
Rick's name should really be Rick Sanctimonioustorum.
;D ;D ;D :P :P
Ah, to live perpetually in the 4th grade . . . .
Well, here's something I find unusual. (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/megadeths-dave-mustaine-endorses-rick-santorum-20120215) Of course, the big question really is who James Hetfield endorses.
(I should note that the endorsement has already been denied.)
Romney looks better all the time. Soon even Republicans will realize that the desperate search to find an acceptable bigoted extremist is a hopeless task. Santorum has the bigoted extremist part covered. Now, about acceptability....how will the independent voters who decide elections react when they hear all the things Santorum has said over the years? He'll make Donald Trump look like Pericles.
I think I will enjoy this election if Santorum is on the ticket. Yes, it will be OK, I think. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
Romney belatedly lost Iowa to Santorum . . . and now:
Will Ron Paul win Maine caucuses after all? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0217/Will-Ron-Paul-win-Maine-caucuses-after-all-State-GOP-taking-new-tally)
Je-je-je-je! Quote from: Peter GrierBut we know what it's like to get on the wrong side of the Ron Paul forces – the e-mails cause all your mobile devices to melt.
As this has kind of become the US politics thread:
House Republicans question Obama on possible cuts in nuclear arsenal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/house-republicans-question-obama-on-possible-cuts-in-nuclear-arsenal/2012/02/17/gIQAb1NtJR_story.html)
This seems to be more evidence at how irrational Obama opposition has become. Reducing the stockpile and the large costs of maintaining such an unneccessary ability to kill multiple earths would save a lot of money and mean that more efficient (and less increasingly degrading) systems could be prioritised. Experts have been mentioning this for years (I recall some news interviews about it a long time ago), and yet in a Soviet bloc "quantity over quality" kind of thought, the knee-jerk reaction is to oppose, because clearly Obama is trying to get America killed by weakening its 'defences' ::)
Quote from: Lethevich on February 17, 2012, 12:38:28 PMThis seems to be more evidence at how irrational Obama opposition has become.
I'm not sure it's irrational at all. Maintaining a large nuclear arsenal provides high paying jobs in a variety of districts, as well as acting as a strategic deterrent. Cuts will come. It's a matter of how much. The goal of a nuclear weapon free world sounds very, very nice. Lovely, in fact. I'd rather the US maintain a strategic arsenal capable of delivering a substantial enough second strike capability to act as an appropriate deterrent. I don't know what number of weapons is needed to achieve that. Perhaps 300-400 will suffice. The article does not make that clear. One word of special interest is "deployed." I'm not sufficiently up on nuclear parlance and arms treaties, but that seems different than total number of warheads available.
Quote from: Lethevich on February 17, 2012, 12:38:28 PM
As this has kind of become the US politics thread:
House Republicans question Obama on possible cuts in nuclear arsenal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/house-republicans-question-obama-on-possible-cuts-in-nuclear-arsenal/2012/02/17/gIQAb1NtJR_story.html)
This seems to be more evidence at how irrational Obama opposition has become. Reducing the stockpile and the large costs of maintaining such an unneccessary ability to kill multiple earths would save a lot of money and mean that more efficient (and less increasingly degrading) systems could be prioritised. Experts have been mentioning this for years (I recall some news interviews about it a long time ago), and yet in a Soviet bloc "quantity over quality" kind of thought, the knee-jerk reaction is to oppose, because clearly Obama is trying to get America killed by weakening its 'defences' ::)
It's not irrational--it's posturing for political benefit.
To those who view the question without political lenses, of course it seems irrational. But much of what the GOP does would seem irrational when viewed that way. And to be fair, much of what the Democrats do, too.
Mind you, this is all in response to a directive from Obama to the military to give him detailed info on what would be involved in reducing our nuclear forces to certain levels (of which 300 is merely the lowest, but it ranges up to 1000 or more) and what US military capabilities would be if such reductions taken place.
IOW, he's not even decided to reduce our available forces by a single weapon, much less cut them to 300.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 17, 2012, 06:30:47 PM
It's not irrational--it's posturing for political benefit.
To those who view the question without political lenses, of course it seems irrational. But much of what the GOP does would seem irrational when viewed that way. And to be fair, much of what the Democrats do, too.
Mind you, this is all in response to a directive from Obama to the military to give him detailed info on what would be involved in reducing our nuclear forces to certain levels (of which 300 is merely the lowest, but it ranges up to 1000 or more) and what US military capabilities would be if such reductions taken place.
IOW, he's not even decided to reduce our available forces by a single weapon, much less cut them to 300.
This is small ball. The arsenal isn't going to change much and the effect on deterrence will be nil either way. I'm not one of those who see a nuclear free world as a real as opposed to a sentimental goal. The danger of nukes depends on who has them. We used them when they were new and in a world war. Today they are more likely to be used by a country beset by suicidal and messianic dreams, which means it would be good for another country that doesn't fit that profile to have them, too, to make it less likely that the fanatics will actually use them instead of strut on the world stage and intimidate their neighbors. And I think it's likely that Iran and Pakistan
will be deterred, though not certain. That's good enough for me.
Let's be objective, because it's fun. Has Santorum underestimated the Satan vote?
I keep figuring that the fact that Santorum has so much as a remote chance of winning this thing is only because all sane Republicans have become so disenchanted with the campaign that they are not even bothering to vote anymore, leaving the race to be decided solely by the certified wingnuts. I have no evidence upon which to base that, just my at-time-irrational hope for the future of our species.
Quote from: Shrunk on February 24, 2012, 08:05:05 AM
I keep figuring that the fact that Santorum has so much as a remote chance of winning this thing is only because all sane Republicans have become so disenchanted with the campaign that they are not even bothering to vote anymore, leaving the race to be decided solely by the certified wingnuts. I have no evidence upon which to base that, just my at-time-irrational hope for the future of our species.
Yes, there's an element of that, but it's also generally true that the activists dominate the primaries in both parties, and they tend to be on the wings rather than the center. The party that succumbs to this process distortion is usually punished in the general election (Goldwater 1964, McGovern 1972). This is the argument for Romney.
Let's make fun of Rick some more:
Quote''President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob,'' the former Pennsylvania senator said. ''There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.''
Because obviously the good, decent, hard working men and women of America will be instantly corrupted if exposed to an opinion not vetted by Fox.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980. He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981.
In 1986, Santorum received a law degree (JD) with honors from the Dickinson School of Law.
QuoteMr Santorum said he disagreed with the ''absolute separation'' between church and state outlined by Kennedy. He said reading the speech made him want to ''throw up''.
''The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,'' he said.
First of all, "the church" - WHICH church exactly, among the many creeds and fila, do you want to see involved in the "operation of the state"? Second, that phrase "operation of the state" has an alarmingly technocratic sound - will there be a Department of the Faith, with offices in each state? Will they set standards, and monitor for breaches? Will they get to wear cool black leather coats like the Gestapo used to wear?
And maybe I'm overly sensitive, but saying that a former president's speech made you want to throw up does not seem very "presidential".
Quotes are from this article (http://www.smh.com.au/world/santorum-tars-obama-and-romney-with-one-snob-swipe-20120227-1tyv5.html), which was extracted from reports in the Washington Post.
Addendum:
More fun facts about Rick Santorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum):
Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 which aimed to prohibit the National Weather Service from releasing weather data to the public without charge where private-sector entities perform the same function commercially.
Because why should the public have access to information their tax dollars paid for?
On the libertarian right: "they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. ... we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues.... Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone..."
BUT global warming is a "beautifully concocted scheme" by the political left and "an excuse for more government control of your life."
Make up your mind, Rick. Goverment good? Government bad?
Quote from: eyeresist on February 27, 2012, 05:05:12 PM
Because obviously the good, decent, hard working men and women of America will be instantly corrupted if exposed to an opinion not vetted by Fox.
I heard about this from my college composition teacher. I don't understand... is this guy's dream to turn America into an African country, where the few rich politicians have control over everything, and the masses are dumbed down? I think that was ultimately the intention with SOPA, because it seems like there is some movement among extreme conservatives who want to bring the country into the Middle Ages because they simply want more power.
Take away higher education and take away the internet. Dumb down the masses and you have control.
Quote from: Greg on February 27, 2012, 06:51:13 PM
I heard about this from my college composition teacher. I don't understand... is this guy's dream to turn America into an African country, where the few rich politicians have control over everything, and the masses are dumbed down? I think that was ultimately the intention with SOPA, because it seems like there is some movement among extreme conservatives who want to bring the country into the Middle Ages because they simply want more power.
Take away higher education and take away the internet. Dumb down the masses and you have control.
Not exactly. It's rooted in the belief that teachers at almost all levels of education are overwhelmingly radical leftiet in their political beliefs, and those beliefs have corrupted everything they teach--and therefore studying on one's own can yield better results. They don't think of it as dumbing down--they think of it as protecting one's mind until they can purge the education profession. The same sort of people seem to think more highly of doctors who go into medicine because they expect to get paid well than they do of doctors who go into medicine because, well, they want to help sick people.. I've had Republicans accuse me of spreading Marxist propaganda when I point out that the Bible isn't exactly enthusiastic about free market capitalism, and who apparently think that the Bible's demand for charity and proper treatment of the poor is merely a Leftist excuse for governmental control. They're Christians., most of them, too--but apparently they've managed to purge their idea of Christianity of anything that smacks of what used to be called "the social gospel".
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 27, 2012, 07:49:20 PMNot exactly. It's rooted in the belief that teachers at almost all levels of education are overwhelmingly radical leftist in their political beliefs, and those beliefs have corrupted everything they teach--and therefore studying on one's own can yield better results. They don't think of it as dumbing down--they think of it as protecting one's mind until they can purge the education profession.
Hence "home schooling", which seems to be a sort of national joke in the US.
Where's COLOSSUS when we really need it? ;D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41hLdKV7OkL._SS500_.jpg)
(http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/47/MPW-23852)
Um... for most subjects you don't need a class or a teacher. People just don't know how to teach themselves a subject. Learning in a classroom is an extremely slow procession in comparison to teaching yourself.
Quote from: Greg on February 28, 2012, 06:37:23 AMLearning in a classroom is an extremely slow procession in comparison to teaching yourself.
This may or may not be the case for eight year olds.
Quote from: eyeresist on February 27, 2012, 08:49:39 PM
Hence "home schooling", which seems to be a sort of national joke in the US.
On that subject:
QuoteRick Santorum's home-school hokum
As various media outlets from Mother Jones to the Washington Post have reminded us in recent weeks, Santorum's record as a home-schooler is ambiguous at the very least, and arguably hypocritical. From 2001 through at least 2004, when Santorum was serving in the Senate and living full-time in Loudoun County, Va., five of his children were enrolled in an online charter school based in Pennsylvania — a public school, albeit an unusual one — with computers, curricula and other educational services provided at taxpayer expense. According to the Penn Hills Progress, a newspaper in Santorum's suburban Pittsburgh hometown that broke the story at the time, the local school district had spent approximately $100,000 educating the senator's so-called home-schooled children, although they lived neither in the district nor in the state....
When Penn Hills tried to bill Santorum for $72,000 that the state had withheld from the local education budget to cover the senator's kids' online tuition, he refused to pay. In the end, the Pennsylvania department of education was forced to refund most of that money to the local district. In other words, the Santorums presented themselves to the world as home-schoolers for at least three years, while Pennsylvania taxpayers picked up the bill for their kids' education — and they actually lived in a different state. For a private citizen, this would have been an embarrassing ethical lapse, but somewhat short of criminal misconduct. For a politician whose reputation rests upon issues of character and integrity, it's considerably more damning.... From here, Rick Santorum does not look like an independent-minded man of principle, however misguided — and still less like a model home-school parent. He looks like another angry white guy who wants to cut taxes and slash government and declare his John Wayne independence from society, but is still delighted to spend other people's money on his own kids.
http://politics.salon.com/2012/02/26/rick_santorums_home_school_hokum/
But Santorum isn't unique. Conservative spongery is, dare I say, intrinsic to the outlook. Just look at the liberal states, all of them providers of the revenue to the Red State welfare queens. It isn't just that liberal states are richer (often they are but not always), it's that they actually proceed on the assumption that "with great wealth comes great responsibility". So the liberal state supports it's own poor and the poor of the Red States that follow a different mandate. In essence, we help them, they can never face up to that crucial fact, and they will never forgive us. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Greg on February 28, 2012, 06:37:23 AM
Um... for most subjects you don't need a class or a teacher. People just don't know how to teach themselves a subject.
That's exactly why they need classes and teachers, especially when they are very young, as
Todd correctly pointed out.
May I ask you to list five subjects you taught yourself to proficiency starting from scratch?
My prediction based on current conditions is Obama will be reelected by approximately the same margin as 2008. It isn't the quality of the candidate any more, it's the quality of the party that will be the issue, though it will not be framed that way by the handicappers, who will blame Romney. But that would be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Romney's badness is a symptom of the dilemma of running as a 2012 Republican. He is in many ways the pure expression of a party that no longer exists, the old moderate Republican Party of Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon and Bush the Elder. Even Reagan worked comfortably with the moderates and they appreciated that, lip service to the fetus lobby aside, The Gipper was often quite flexible and not as dogmatic in practice as his rhetoric would indicate.
This is the party that Romney belongs to, but it no longer exists. No wonder he acts like a robot having a nervous breakdown. Someone should hit him with an oxygen tank and put us all out of our misery.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEsEcFSiEUtAfJlmuF-TzWylh7l74waMHUnKlZGoM828jqmFVk)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2012, 05:46:31 AM
May I ask you to list five subjects you taught yourself to proficiency starting from scratch?
I'm not the one you asked, but:
Opera
Other Classical music
Jazz
Excel
How to use the GMG Forum! 8)
Seriously, it is relatively easy to learn how to use tools - excel, spatula, needle and thread, ladle, etc. It is relatively hard to become proficient with them without some sort of either classroom and/or hands-on teaching/experience (unless the person is a natural, as they say). The classroom stuff helps speed things along (if done correctly) and build a stronger foundation in the subject.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2012, 02:22:44 AM
Opera
Other Classical music
Jazz
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you proficiently self-taught in singing operatic arias or playing piano sonatas and jazz standards?
Quote
Excel
How to use the GMG Forum! 8)
Seriously, it is relatively easy to learn how to use tools - excel, spatula, needle and thread, ladle, etc. It is relatively hard to become proficient with them without some sort of either classroom and/or hands-on teaching/experience (unless the person is a natural, as they say). The classroom stuff helps speed things along (if done correctly) and build a stronger foundation in the subject.
I agree.
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2012, 02:32:52 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you proficiently self-taught in singing operatic arias or playing piano sonatas and jazz standards?
History of opera is probably more accurate. In Jazz, I played and studied. As to classical, I am self taught as to the music, the history, and most theory (though I must admit to some classes in my youth and I did play classical music as well, so even this is not entirely accurate). Really, the first four were necessary to get to the GMG joke. ;D
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2012, 02:39:58 AM
History of opera is probably more accurate. In Jazz, I played and studied. As to classical, I am self taught as to the music, the history, and most theory (though I must admit to some classes in my youth and I did play classical music as well, so even this is not entirely accurate). Really, the first four were necessary to get to the GMG joke. ;D
Thanks for clarifying.
Ok, I agree that an adult (i.e. someone who has already had some degree of formal education), if really interested in a subject, can aquire a fairly good knowledge by self teaching (though I'm not sure this is the case when it comes to singing or playing an instrument) but this certainly does not apply to children and teenagers and they really need classes and teachers. Otherwise why not abolish schools altogether and let everyone teach himself what he likes? (
This is a question for Greg, not for you. :) )
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2012, 02:49:21 AM
(This is a question for Greg, not for you. :) )
Uh oh. I got in trouble... :)
Quote from: Todd on February 28, 2012, 06:42:45 AM
This may or may not be the case for eight year olds.
For eight year olds, I'd hardly imagine it to be the case for most of them. :D
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2012, 05:46:31 AM
That's exactly why they need classes and teachers, especially when they are very young, as Todd correctly pointed out.
When you're young, it's different- I meant when you get older.
Quote from: Florestan on March 01, 2012, 05:46:31 AM
May I ask you to list five subjects you taught yourself to proficiency starting from scratch?
Oh, if I didn't have to work, I could easily list five things with all of the time I'd have.
Music- composing and guitar. I was able to learn so quickly only because I had: time + resources.
Languages- haven't mastered Spanish and Japanese yet because I have no time for them, but will master one day. Although I did take classes of both in high school, that was just beginner stuff which I didn't need to study for, and got As all the way through. Foreign language classes have such a slow pace... if I actually had time to master the languages, it would be at a fraction of the time spent doing the same thing in a classroom. But... one thing I'd have to eventually do at the final level is to get used to speaking it, by moving or something. Right now, I'm just reading any text I can, although the only thing I tend to avoid is old Japanese literature, because the dictionaries usually aren't sufficient for old words.
Computer Programming- even though I've taken so many classes, I could have taught myself this as well. In fact, I have taught myself more advanced programming, doing databases/SQL, server systems, advanced Java, etc. and have built a few cool programs with this. All you need are good books and internet resources and you're on your way.
I used to try to draw, and had progress, but no time to master it. Drawing/art is something one can master by themselves (many have).
EDIT: oh, and I should mention, that I learn math much better when I'm teaching myself. Hopefully, there will be online math classes next semester. Sitting in a room and listening to someone talk is exactly what makes it difficult.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on
Today at 08:02:16 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=19080.msg606433#msg606433)
Uh oh. I got in trouble... :)
Ah, something new to be added to Your Permanent Record! ; )
Watching Obama at AIPAC!!!
No 'leader' can serve two masters
'when the chips are down, I have Israel's back'
Why is Israel the ONLY thing that seems to matter???
Wow, just look at him bask. :o
The next president is the one who prostrates themselves the MOST to Israel. They are ALL falling over themselves to declare their undying support for 2% of the American population. Sorry, this is not kosher. This is NOT American!!!!
Israel is a racist, apartheid proto-theocracy with nukes.
Did I mention they have nukes? That we don't allow that? That NO ONE says it?
Israel will not last indefinitely like this. Yea, their economy is a miracle all right. >:D
Basically, Obama is saying that he will be oh most so glad to let the goyim die for Israel in Iran and Syria and wherever we need to make the world safe for compound interest.
How many countries has Iran invaded since 1979?
How many suicide bombers were Iranian?
SHUT UP BARRY!!! >:D
RANT: off
Is Santorum being addressed in the US media for his recent remarks on the Dutch health care system (that old people must wear arm strips saying "Don´t Kill Me", since the ("socialist") system have no respect for their lives if they are being hospitalized, and that 10 % of the Dutch are being killed by that system for "compassion reasons" ? These remarks are being reported and illustrated with sound clips here, accompanied by the anxious "oh", "oh, no !" among his listeners.
(versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands)
Quote from: snyprrr on March 04, 2012, 07:30:55 AM
Israel is a racist, apartheid proto-theocracy with nukes.
Yes, in approximately the same way we are. You have to take the bad with the good, I suppose, unless you would prefer to cozy up to the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians without the Israeli friendship. Would that make more sense? I don't think so, because Israel is a modern democratic state, and strange as it may seem the only way that Palestinians are going to get the kind of political rights that most of us want for them is if they start to want them for themselves. They have to want a Palestinian state even more than they want to destroy the Israeli state. When that happens the pressure on Israel to make the first real deal for peace will be enormous, coming from both within and from the U.S. There will also be pressure from the rest of the world, but since that has always been in the form of "why don't you cut your own throat to prove you aren't Nazis" it hasn't had the effect friends of the Palestinians hoped for. Can you understand why?
Israel isn't going to blow up countries any time soon with their nukes. But who could trust Iran?
Quote from: drogulus on March 02, 2012, 01:59:14 AMMy prediction based on current conditions is Obama will be reelected by approximately the same margin as 2008. It isn't the quality of the candidate any more, it's the quality of the party that will be the issue, though it will not be framed that way by the handicappers, who will blame Romney.
Yes, in a competition between mediocrity and lunacy, most will choose the former :)
Quotelip service to the fetus lobby
LOL!!!!
Quote from: Greg on March 04, 2012, 12:49:47 PMBut who could trust Iran?
I suppose it depends on how one views the Iranian leadership. If one thinks they are crazies prone to engaging in nuclear war or wantonly selling nuclear technology, then I suppose one can't "trust" them. If, however, one views Iranian leadership (meaning the Ayatollahs) as well-educated, sophisticated, cynical, and brutal politicians, then one can surmise the Iranians may be seeking nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent against future unilateral actions by the United States in the region, and as a bargaining chip for dealings with Arab countries, which are prone to an anti-Iranian outlook. Such an outlook would also lead one to conclude that Iran would be unlikely to use a nuclear weapon since doing so would invite a large-scale military confrontation with the United States, and one that Iran could not possibly win or come away from without serious damage. In that regard, one might be able to trust the Iranians in so far as they are rational actors making rational choices to enhance their power in the region and secure their interests. It is certainly not in the best interest of the US or nations directly dependent on Middle Eastern oil for Iran to have nuclear weapons, though.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 04, 2012, 07:30:55 AMBasically, Obama is saying that he will be oh most so glad to let the goyim die for Israel in Iran and Syria and wherever we need to make the world safe for compound interest.
And here I thought that the primary strategic interest in the Middle East was oil, and an overriding concern of the US since the Eisenhower Administration has been to prevent any other nation from being able to exercise any degree of hegemony in the region, which would have significant to dire consequences for the rest of the world, or at least those parts of the world that rely heavily on oil. No, your claptrap makes much more sense.
Quote from: Greg on March 04, 2012, 12:49:47 PM
But who could trust Iran?
Again, Iran hasn't invaded ANYBODY since 1979. US and Israel, however...
just sayin' :D
Heck, North Korea's never invaded anybody. They must therefore be trustworthy . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 05, 2012, 05:12:00 AMThey must therefore be trustworthy . . . .[/font]
Indeed. The same could be said about Syria. Or Sudan. Or Zimbabwe. And technically, China hasn't invaded anyone recently. Complaints by Tibetans and Uighers therefore have no merit.
I am curious to know if snyprrr thinks the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor a few years ago was a bad idea. Surely things would be better today were Syria a nuclear power.
Quote from: DieNacht on March 04, 2012, 07:41:47 AM
Is Santorum being addressed in the US media for his recent remarks on the Dutch health care system (that old people must wear arm strips saying "Don´t Kill Me", since the ("socialist") system have no respect for their lives if they are being hospitalized, and that 10 % of the Dutch are being killed by that system for "compassion reasons" ? These remarks are being reported and illustrated with sound clips here, accompanied by the anxious "oh", "oh, no !" among his listeners.
(versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands)
To the best of my knowledge, no one but a crackpot minority believes anything Santorum has to say. He is a wing-nut (in this case, a Right wing-nut) and has no credibility in the eyes of the majority of actual Republicans. When the shakeout comes (fairly shortly), he will go with the rest of the dandruff. So I wouldn't be unduly concerned about his opinion of the Netherlander health care system. If he were to actually become president, I would personally be delighted to become one of your citizens and partake of it. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 05, 2012, 07:03:20 AMTo the best of my knowledge, no one but a crackpot minority believes anything Santorum has to say.
Alas, there are quite a few social conservatives who do believe him. Not enough to get him the nomination, let alone the presidency. I can only imagine joy in the Obama camp were Santorum to get the nomination.
Quote from: Todd on
Today at 12:09:21 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=19080.msg607447#msg607447)
Alas, there are quite a few social conservatives who do believe him. Not enough to get him the nomination, let alone the presidency. I can only imagine joy in the Obama camp were Santorum to get the nomination.
For the matter of that, it cannot grieve Team Obama at all, to see that the Mittster is having such trouble shaking Santorum off his pants cuff . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 05, 2012, 07:22:27 AMFor the matter of that, it cannot grieve Team Obama at all, to see that the Mittster is having such trouble shaking Santorum off his pants cuff . . . .
The primary is offering all manner of attacks that can be used against any Republican candidate in the general election:
• Romney committed the now horrible sin of being a successful capitalist. Clearly, he's a very bad man. Throw in the conservative pronouncements he has made – half-hearted or fake to conservatives; proof of his evil conservatism to liberals – and the aloof gaffes (his wife drives a couple Cadillacs, etc, etc, etc), and he's prone to withering attack from Obama. Of course, Romney will have the Willie Horton ad exec in his corner, so it will get good and nasty. (I predict internet ads will be the best.)
• Santorum thinks it is 1958, but without anti-Catholic bigotry.
• Gingrich thinks Gingrich is cool.
• Paul is a certified fruitcake.
Quote from: DieNacht on March 05, 2012, 08:31:41 AM
The Dutch are known for their generally enlightened and tolerant attitude so I suppose it would be possible.
Yes, well they would have to be to adopt a Texan of their own. :D
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 05, 2012, 07:03:20 AM
To the best of my knowledge, no one but a crackpot minority believes anything Santorum has to say. He is a wing-nut (in this case, a Right wing-nut) and has no credibility in the eyes of the majority of actual Republicans. When the shakeout comes (fairly shortly), he will go with the rest of the dandruff. So I wouldn't be unduly concerned about his opinion of the Netherlander health care system. If he were to actually become president, I would personally be delighted to become one of your citizens and partake of it. :)
8)
Well, all democracies have their wing-nuts, but it is a bit worrying that he is still in business as a candidate for the leadership of the US & that some states have actually voted for him. Such remarks suggest him being perhaps a sanatorium rather than an oval office guy to me - a complete lack of political insight and maturity in spite of his project.
Quote from: DieNacht on March 05, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Well, all democracies have their wing-nuts, but it is a bit worrying that he is still in business as a candidate for the leadership of the US & that some states have actually voted for him. Such remarks suggest him being perhaps a sanatorium rather than an oval office guy to me - a complete lack of political insight and maturity in spite of his project.
Well yes, certainly that's true; it isn't really worrying, however. This part of the process is designed to weed out the loonies. It nearly always works. But in a country of 300 millions of people, there are always going to be a few like-thinking, equally moronic wing nuts. The thing I've noticed over the years is that generally speaking, the morons among us have more time on their hands, and louder voices, than the reasonable, hard-workers of the majority. So they show up in the early primaries in droves. But come election time, they will recede into the woodwork from whence they came. And their candidates with them. I would cut off my own head before voting for Santorum, and so would everyone I know. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on
Today at 02:50:15 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=19080.msg607517#msg607517)
. . . generally speaking, the morons among us have more time on their hands, and louder voices, than the reasonable, hard-workers of the majority.
I think immediately of Rush Limbaugh, whose nonsense is not vindicated by calling it "entertainment."
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 05, 2012, 07:03:20 AMTo the best of my knowledge, no one but a crackpot minority believes anything Santorum has to say. He is a wing-nut (in this case, a Right wing-nut) and has no credibility in the eyes of the majority of actual Republicans. When the shakeout comes (fairly shortly), he will go with the rest of the dandruff. So I wouldn't be unduly concerned about his opinion of the Netherlander health care system. If he were to actually become president, I would personally be delighted to become one of your citizens and partake of it. :)
Armbands for all!
Quote from: Todd on March 05, 2012, 07:42:29 AMThe primary is offering all manner of attacks that can be used against any Republican candidate in the general election:
• Romney committed the now horrible sin of being a successful capitalist. Clearly, he's a very bad man.
According to this list of richest American politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_American_politicians), Romney is only number 12 - what a loser!
Quote from: Todd on March 05, 2012, 06:39:43 AM
Indeed. The same could be said about Syria. Or Sudan. Or Zimbabwe. And technically, China hasn't invaded anyone recently. Complaints by Tibetans and Uighers therefore have no merit.
I am curious to know if snyprrr thinks the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor a few years ago was a bad idea. Surely things would be better today were Syria a nuclear power.
Israeli PM Calls Iran a 'Nuclear Duck'!
snyprrr calls Israel a 'Nuclear Weasel'!
Hey, all the more power to 'em. ok, Bibi, here's your desert fatigues, here's your parachute, go at 'em buddy. Just don't ask the Goy to fight your battles of jealousy.
No, I'm not afraid of the 'Axis of Evil' (any country without a Rothchilds Central Bank).
Hey, bomb Syria to your heart's content. I'm talking about... the other place! :-[ ;D
Frankly, that AIPAC speech had the cows ruminatin'. Oy, the way PM brought out the Jewish Congress stuff from 1944, to shame us,...ooo... shame shame shame America, you might as well be on our shit list too (we are, don't worry), how daaare you. Oh, n***a pleeez. >:D
And then he goes on about how Arabs and Christians have all these rights in Israel. N***a pleeez.
Is it true that former IDF are getting sushi training because they don't want for (I try not to go on to long)
PM basically says that he can do anything for the Jews' survival. What if that means the genocide of the rest of the world because he's so paranoid that anyone... ANYONE... might ever look at a Jew 'wrong'?
Yes, basically, let them do the 'Christian' thing and...mm... I don't know... turn the other cheek? Love their enemies? Do something other than scold scold scold? They're acting like they're... CHOSEN BY GOD, or something. The Israelis are craving their own destruction: they, as a lot, are Freudian to the hilt. They will destroy themselves trying to save (only) themselves.
They act like not only do they want to get into the lifeboat first, they want to be the only ones IN the lifeboat.
Yea, I'm sorry, I just can't say anything nice about Israel. Nothing. I'd love to know how many of their nukes are pointed at their 'allies'. I just can't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of any Israeli figure. Sorry. :'(
The French I like.
Dear God,
Please let them change the subject so we can all go back to discussing things that really matter, like Romney, and Santorum, and G...
btw- my computer says 'Romney' is spelled right, but 'Santorum' isn't. Hmmm...it's a conspiracy!! :o
Quote from: snyprrr on March 05, 2012, 07:50:37 PMI'd love to know how many of their nukes are pointed at their 'allies'.
Hmmm.
How much do you know about Mitt Romney? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1006/How-much-do-you-know-about-Mitt-Romney-A-quiz)
I scored a disappointing 75%.
Love the answer choices for the first question. I do admit that I did not know that People named Romney a beautiful man. Perhaps I should expand my reading list.
I got that one wrong, too . . . wonder how that would play in the current campaign?
Not being a US citizen, I took the test just for the fun of it and scored 33 % (I guessed his name, I inferred from drogulus' posts that he likes Ike, it was obvious that on the roof of his car must have been the dog and I have read about his naming corporations "people" - and for honesty I pretended not to have read the two previous posts and chose a wrong answer deliberately). :)
Very sporting of you, Andrei! : )
Hey, Romney won in Hawaii! (With 45% of the vote there.)
"Senator Santorum is at the desperate end of his campaign," said Romney, who came in third in Alabama and Mississippi. Sounds just a little strange, and more than a little like wishful thinking. Santorum cannot win, but that doesn't mean either that he's at the end now, nor that it is a desperate end. Desperation is on Romney's side, meseems . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 14, 2012, 05:51:12 AMDesperation is on Romney's side, meseems
Hard to see how someone with so many delegates is desperate. More like standard blather at this point.
I do enjoy The Onion's recent headline regarding Mr Santorum. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rick-santorum-relieved-no-one-has-asked-him-about,27630/)
Quote from: Todd on March 14, 2012, 06:31:11 AM
Hard to see how someone with so many delegates is desperate.
Oh, no lie. Still, as one journo puts it, "The presumptive nominee shouldn't finish third in both major states that voted on Tuesday."
Quote from: karlhenning on March 14, 2012, 10:40:42 AMOh, no lie. Still, as one journo puts it, "The presumptive nominee shouldn't finish third in both major states that voted on Tuesday."
But we're talking about Alabama and Mississippi.
Aye, and not American Samoa ; )
Don't discount them crafty Samoans! (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/american-samoa-actually-not-bad-political-predictor-after-all/49887/)
Isn't there unit of currency the Samolian?
Quote from: Todd on March 14, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
Don't discount them crafty Samoans! (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/american-samoa-actually-not-bad-political-predictor-after-all/49887/)
I hereby attest that I did not, until reading that article, know that Mitt Romney's son was named Matt. Mitt & Matt . . . .
Mmm, Somoa . . .
(http://iamhiprock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/samoa-cookie.jpg)
Is the GOP engaging in open, blatant Election Fraud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYrICkVC9-o
:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D :D :D
Yes,... I know.
Romney crushes the competition in Puerto Rico! Nice to see Buddy Roemer beating out Newt Gingrich and Fred Karger beating out Ron Paul. Perhaps Roemer or Karger can have a late primary surge?
Regarding Ron Paul, I'm reminded of what Hunter Thompson said about Hubert Humphrey in his book about the 1972 election. It's funny, but too revolting to say here, where high standards prevail in spite of my best efforts.
Read this book, political junkies:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Story.fearandloathing.jpg)
I thought American Conservative Christian Republicans (Churchianity) wouldn't go for a Mormon or a Catholic? How can any self respecting Fundamentalist stand for this, or, are they... have they totally lost sight of their previous watermarks? I haven't found one to ask. What 'religion' is Paul supposed to be?
Santorum is just saying some of the funniest things in the last week, astounding soundbites that surely would find their way into next week's hit piece commercial. He might as well say he defers to the pope.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 20, 2012, 06:28:17 AMI thought American Conservative Christian Republicans (Churchianity) wouldn't go for a Mormon or a Catholic?
Why would you think that? Look at the Supreme Court: all Catholics and Jews. I admit that I don't follow conspiracy theories and "underground" movements a whole lot, but I'm not familiar with much in the way of outrage at the religious composition of SCOTUS. There has been the occasional kerfuffle about Obama's religion, but that's more or less limited to nut jobs or cynics trying to exploit nut jobs. Perhaps religion is not critically important to a lot of people.
Forget Obama's religion, wasn't he really born in Nepal or somewhere? He's definitely not a US citizen! We wuz doooped!
Quote from: karlhenning on March 20, 2012, 06:48:24 AMForget Obama's religion, wasn't he really born in Nepal or somewhere? He's definitely not a US citizen! We wuz doooped!
McCain wasn't born in the USA, either, so in 2008 we had our choice of two non-Americans!
Aliens! I knowed it!
Quote from: Todd on March 20, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
McCain wasn't born in the USA
AFAIK, between 1903 and 1979 the Panama Canal Zone was a
de facto USA territory on which USA jurisdiction and sovereignity applied. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2012, 09:29:50 AMAFAIK, between 1903 and 1979 the Panama Canal Zone was a de facto USA territory on which USA jurisdiction and sovereignity applied. Am I wrong?
The language of the Constitution states that "[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen" can be President. That's somewhat vague. It is my understanding that that any person born to US citizens is considered a "natural born Citizen," irrespective of where the person is born. Whether the Panama Canal Zone was a US territory or not may or may not be germane. (It is worth noting that any person born in the US is considered a US citizen, per the 14th Amendment, with no mention of parental origins, so it would be theoretically possible to elect a President born to illegal immigrants.) So McCain could run and lose, which he did. For good measure, the Senate passed a resolution in 2008 that validated that McCain was a "natural born Citizen."
Quote from: Todd on March 20, 2012, 09:49:45 AM
. . . For good measure, the Senate passed a resolution in 2008 that validated that McCain was a "natural born Citizen."
Well, it isn't as if the Senate had more important tasks on their plate, is it?
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2012, 09:29:50 AM
AFAIK, between 1903 and 1979 the Panama Canal Zone was a de facto USA territory on which USA jurisdiction and sovereignity applied. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong, and I'm sure Todd's well aware of that fact. Anyway, McCain is a white Republican, so it's no big deal. ;D
Quote from: Todd on March 20, 2012, 06:43:07 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on March 20, 2012, 06:28:17 AM
I thought American Conservative Christian Republicans (Churchianity) wouldn't go for a Mormon or a Catholic?
Why would you think that? Look at the Supreme Court: all Catholics and Jews.
Ah but the Churcianity folk don't get to vote for Supreme Court justices, thank God (just an expression).
Quote from: Todd on March 20, 2012, 09:49:45 AM
The language of the Constitution states that "[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen" can be President. That's somewhat vague.
[...]
For good measure, the Senate passed a resolution in 2008 that validated that McCain was a "natural born Citizen."
Hah! Well, I've always thought that Constitutions were worth less than the paper they are printed on... ;D
Quote from: Wendell_E on March 20, 2012, 09:54:23 AMAh but the Churcianity folk don't get to vote for Supreme Court justices, thank God (just an expression).
True, but they do get to vote for Senators who then vote on whether or not to confirm nominees. In some states, conservative Christians have a bit more sway than others. It is thus possible for a minority, or a minority of a minority, to indirectly block presidential nominees. Happens with some regularity now.
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2012, 09:56:19 AMHah! Well, I've always thought that Constitutions are worth less than the paper they are printed on...
Sometimes that is the case.
Quote from: Todd on March 20, 2012, 06:43:07 AM
Look at the Supreme Court: all Catholics and Jews.
shhh... there are...some things... we just don't talk about 8)
How bout all this outrage over the Sharia and Caliphate, when, in 1991, the US Gov included Lubovitch's Schneerson's Noachide Laws in the preamble blah bla...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Our gov is fake, they all go to the same schools, are lawyers (wotnot) guns and money,... don't speak for me in the slightest, not one of them. One side wants to kill me THIS way, the other THAT way,... they're just fighting over the spoils, that's all. >:D
Obama just added his sig to the 'Confiscate America' Executive Order,... so he's just sayin 'Yes Sir' to the same entity that Bush said 'Yes Sir' to.
Seriously, there are only a few players on the planet who could be runnin stuff,...mm,...say... mm...China, the Vatican, and Israel. Now,... who's kissing whomse's ass?
Oh, I've got to stop Posting here late at night. Todd, it's your fault! MODS, bane him,... bane him good!! ::)
why do you hate me so much? :)
I'm the victim
Quote from: snyprrr on March 20, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
I'm the victim
Yes, but of what? (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smilies/badgrin.gif)
Quote from: snyprrr on March 20, 2012, 06:36:17 PMTodd, it's your fault! MODS, bane him,... bane him good!!
Surely you don't mean that.
(http://www.liveforfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bane-tom-hardy-dark-knight-rises.jpg)
I'm steering clear of his dental hygienist!
Quote from: snyprrr on March 17, 2012, 08:57:40 PM
Is the GOP engaging in open, blatant Election Fraud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYrICkVC9-o
:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D :D :D
Yes,... I know.
Obama is saying the party notables don't want Paul and "conspired" to deny him the nomination. Most normal people think that's what party leaders are paid to do, keep the party out of the hands of various um, enthusiasts who will, if they have their way, drag the party over the nearest cliff. Why Repub leaders haven't yet launched a smear campaign against Santorum can probably be explained by the realization that Santorum is doing a better job of it than anyone else could. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
Quote from: Todd on March 21, 2012, 06:43:55 AM
Surely you don't mean that.
(http://www.liveforfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bane-tom-hardy-dark-knight-rises.jpg)
woah, goin' ;D Thunderdome on me!! ;)
If you read The Washington Post this morning you'dtoo early ::)
Republicans Reveal that Entire Presidential Race was a Prank.
In an April Fool's Day announcement that took the political world by storm, the Republican Party revealed today that its entire presidential race had been an elaborate prank.
"I mean, I kept saying '9-9-9' every four seconds, which was total and utter bullshit," Herman Cain said. "And everything out of Michele's mouth made her sound like a mental patient."
"True dat," Rep. Bachmann agreed.
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/03/31/republicans-reveal-that-entire-presidential-race-was-a-prank/
(* chortle *)
I'm so glad this thread only contain objective reviews, or else I wouldn't know what to believe.
Quote from: Todd on March 20, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
McCain wasn't born in the USA, either, so in 2008 we had our choice of two non-Americans!
Two non-Americans, and an American who could see Russia from her back porch.
Anyway, must be over, bar the shouting. Although, given the current state of the GOP, there's still plenty of shouting yet.
Quote from: The new erato on April 02, 2012, 04:53:00 AM
I'm so glad this thread only contain objective reviews, or else I wouldn't know what to believe.
I object!
Quote from: karlhenning on April 02, 2012, 05:10:17 AMAnyway, must be over, bar the shouting. Although, given the current state of the GOP, there's still plenty of shouting yet.
I did start off by stating that this would be a contest about hair, did I not? With Perry gone, Romney has really had no challengers.
Almost time to turn to the General Election. How many votes will Obama win by?
I think it will still be a squeaker.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 02, 2012, 06:43:25 AMI think it will still be a squeaker.
The lead Barry currently enjoys in the polls will indeed erode after Romney and crew shake that Etch-A-Sketch. More important, the flood of general election ads will be a thing of beauty or horror, depending on one's viewpoint. I demand entertainment in my elections, so I think it will be a thing of beauty.
Of entertainment, there shall be no stint this fall!
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2012, 06:52:09 AM
The lead Barry currently enjoys in the polls will indeed erode after Romney and crew shake that Etch-A-Sketch. More important, the flood of general election ads will be a thing of beauty or horror, depending on one's viewpoint. I demand entertainment in my elections, so I think it will be a thing of beauty.
Are you not entertained!?!?!
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2012, 06:52:09 AMI demand entertainment in my elections, so I think it will be a thing of beauty.
Ominous voice-over: Barack Obama ... self-confessed Democrat ... foreign ties ... swiftboats ... Bingo!
The ads will try to claim that Obama engineered the gas price rise to further his environmentalist agenda. This is inaccurate as far as I can tell. What he said a few years back might indicate that he thought a price rise would bring benefits of that nature. As for taking action Obama has generally supported increased production. I think this is the responsible way to go, to support new energy initiatives while getting the most from fossil fuels now. He's walking a tightrope between the enviros and the consciousless drillers, but the important point is he's on the rope, trying for the best solution. It's typical Obama, hugely disappointing to cranks everywhere. It's only virtue as policy is that it's just about right.
The only thing I'd do differently is waste more money on Solyndra-type loans. If one pays off, it pays for the ones that didn't many times over. But they're sooooo unpopular........(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/sad.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2012, 11:10:48 PMThis is inaccurate as far as I can tell.
Doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is what voters perceive. Remember, Romney's Super PAC has the dude who gave us Willie Horton, so expect all manner of advertising fun.
Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2012, 11:15:23 PMThe only thing I'd do differently is waste more money on Solyndra-type loans. If one pays off, it pays for the ones that didn't many times over.
That's a dubious conclusion, to say the least. Solyndra produces a product that cannot compete with readily available substitutes. Pouring more money into firms that engage in similar business practices will
never payoff. To the extent the government engages in what amounts to venture capital investing, it should pursue a more diversified approach and dole out smaller sums to firms that actually have some type of potential advantage in the market. Of course, once people become romantically attached to things like solar power, everything may end up looking like a good opportunity.
If the campaign were realistic, it wouldn't be any fun. And in the mean time, Newt gets to talk. And talk. And talk. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/the-professor-gingrich-roadshow/2012/04/02/gIQAiHGcrS_blog.html?hpid=z3)
So whom am I not voting for?
Can you imagine what a realistic debate about long-term budgeting would be like? Most people would find it deadly dull, and then no one would be happy with the conclusions. Look at the fate of Simpson-Bowles. Any realistic or quasi-realistic budget plan ends up being dropped. Republicans say any taxes are big government encroachment, and Democrats say that any spending cuts are just plain mean. Then think about a realistic, dispassionate debate on foreign policy and military spending. I forgot, which monsters are we fighting today?
And if our leaders could do that, where would we get routine doses of hyperbole, and how could we enjoy lurching from one fiscal year to the next?
Quote from: Ataraxia on April 03, 2012, 06:39:38 AM
So whom am I not voting for?
Only you can say, Grasshopper.
Quote from: Todd on April 03, 2012, 06:46:41 AM
Can you imagine what a realistic debate about long-term budgeting would be like? Most people would find it deadly dull, and then no one would be happy with the conclusions.
Word.
Say what you will about the Greek compromise; austerity is not sexy.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 03, 2012, 06:49:13 AMSay what you will about the Greek compromise; austerity is not sexy.
So why all those anorexic models then, hmm?
Quote from: Todd on April 03, 2012, 06:32:07 AM
That's a dubious conclusion, to say the least. Solyndra produces a product that cannot compete with readily available substitutes. Pouring more money into firms that engage in similar business practices will never payoff. To the extent the government engages in what amounts to venture capital investing, it should pursue a more diversified approach and dole out smaller sums to firms that actually have some type of potential advantage in the market. Of course, once people become romantically attached to things like solar power, everything may end up looking like a good opportunity.
I'm not advocating making bad investments. Foresight still hasn't caught up to hindsight, at least not so as you can tell. I'm advocating taking the kind of chances that investing in Solyndra represents because I'm in favor of taking risks generally. That's something the government has to do.
Then let the potshots be taken. I don't care, Obama was right. Solyndra had a good product and China undercut them. Shit happens. I say don't stop now, keep it up.
Quote from: drogulus on April 06, 2012, 02:19:16 PMI'm in favor of taking risks generally. That's something the government has to do.
No, the private sector should undertake the risk. Not taxpayers.
Quote from: drogulus on April 06, 2012, 02:19:16 PMSolyndra had a good product and China undercut them.
Nonsense. Solyndra had a product that could not compete. By definition, that is a
bad product.
Quote from: Todd on April 06, 2012, 05:06:53 PM
No, the private sector should undertake the risk. Not taxpayers.
Yes, like Chinese expansion is fuleled by Chinese private sector.
Quote from: The new erato on April 08, 2012, 10:33:46 AMYes, like Chinese expansion is fuleled by Chinese private sector.
The American economy and the Chinese economy are quite different. I'm quite skeptical that an increasing reliance on what amounts to mercantilist policies will do much other than benefit the specific industries and companies that receive government subsidies and protections. Consumers and taxpayers will end up paying more, that's for sure. Further, I'm not sure the US Federal Government should be pouring money into solar – the industry of the future for the last forty years. Of course, if the US (and other countries, perhaps) should learn from China, especially as it pertains to energy policy, should the US Federal Government pursue policies to match, or perhaps exceed, China's $500 billion+ commitment to nuclear power?
Santorum to pack it in (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-santorum-drops-out-of-the-presidential-race/2012/04/10/gIQACvaV8S_blog.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 10, 2012, 10:27:20 AMSantorum to pack it in (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-santorum-drops-out-of-the-presidential-race/2012/04/10/gIQACvaV8S_blog.html)
Here's Paul's opening!
Hah! And here I was thinking, Now the question is settled: Of Santorum and Gingrich, which is most nearly sane? Quote from: Jennifer RubinFinally embracing reality, Rick Santorum decided to take the easy way out rather than the hard way, leaving the GOP presidential race before a potentially humiliating loss in his home state.
RTWT here.
Well the race just got a heck of alot more lopsided. I wonder if Romney will be able to defeat Obama? I don't think he will.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 10, 2012, 11:00:21 AMOf Santorum and Gingrich, which is most nearly sane?
That strikes me as similar to "Which is less bad, gonorrhea or chlamydia?"
Hey, at least Gingrich won his home state.
Not objective. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/Mitt-Romney-Campaign-Cold-Open/1395369)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 10, 2012, 11:47:05 AM
Not objective. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/Mitt-Romney-Campaign-Cold-Open/1395369)
Funny though. :D
8)
The polls put Obama ahead: but as we know well over here, 'A week is a long time in politics'. Also, "Events dear boy, events."
Mike
I'm not in favor of solar power, I'm in favor of trying anything that might work. As the long history of government led or inspired or designed projects shows, the distinction between public and private initiative is not a difference between private success and public failure. This is a blinkered view. A successful economy depends on a dynamic relation between the parties. If government doesn't play its part (and there are no fixed rules about what the part can be beyond the law and Constitution, which is hardly a restriction) private industry will do what it always does when there is no power grid, no utilities, no commercial code, no road system, no airports, no bridges or dams or canals or railroads built or partially built by public money. That is, they do very little. How could they? There's nothing there to build on. All you have is a few rich landowners and peasants to work the fields. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
The idea that government is just "interference" is a shallow misreading of the history of economic development. Capitalism is a government program, as is the so called free market, about as artificial a construct as I can imagine, that requires constant re-balancing by regulators to preserve the illusion of freedom. Free markets require more, not less regulation.
Quote from: drogulus on April 13, 2012, 04:24:44 AM
The idea that government is just "interference" is a shallow misreading of the history of economic development. Capitalism is a government program, as is the so called free market, about as artificial a construct as I can imagine, that requires constant re-balancing by regulators to preserve the illusion of freedom. Free markets require more, not less regulation.
Sensible chap, you are. May I add that what we call property is itself an artifact of state?
Quote from: chasmaniac on April 13, 2012, 04:32:38 AM
. . . May I add that what we call property is itself an artifact of state?
In a practical sense ever since, yes; but the concept of property in many places must pre-date the creation of a state. (Maybe.)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2012, 04:43:22 AM
In a practical sense ever since, yes; but the concept of property in many places must pre-date the creation of a state. (Maybe.)
Another sensible chap! Sure, in the mists of time... Who knows? And then there is personal property, the clothes on one's back and so forth. Such things get very complicated very quickly and I make no broad claims about them. But bank accounts, trust funds, mortgages, student loans, real estate, copyright, corporations and large-scale markets "free" or otherwise can only exist in the context of an established legal order. The libertarian fantasy reverses this, seeking to root this state function, and limit it to the service of, a concept of property
as naturally occuring. That's the view what irks me. Nature has nothing to do with it.
Uhoh. I've gone and said something serious, haven't I?
Right! Unless we can all convert our liquid assets to precious metals (which as individuals we can manage at home), all our money is, well, paper printed and technically owned by, the guvmint. And nought wrong widdat.
My liquid assets are in my 800 bottle wine cellar.
Quote from: The new erato on April 13, 2012, 05:39:48 AM
My liquid assets are in my 800 bottle wine cellar.
Riches beyond gold! :D
Quote from: drogulus on April 13, 2012, 04:19:35 AMIf government doesn't play its part (and there are no fixed rules about what the part can be beyond the law and Constitution, which is hardly a restriction) private industry will do what it always does when there is no power grid, no utilities, no commercial code, no road system, no airports, no bridges or dams or canals or railroads built or partially built by public money.
It's rare to see such a perfect example of a straw man. Who, anywhere, on this forum or elsewhere, is advocating that the government shouldn't play its part? Even the most ardent free marketeers are all about government enforcement of property rights, which is one of the foundations of a successful economy. Discussions most commonly center around the proper extent of government involvement in the economy.
Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? TNR, here (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=32651b8553-TNR_Daily_041312&utm_medium=email#comments)
This would be more significant if Elhauge were on the SCOTUS.
What's that quip from Justice Robert Jackson - We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
There goes the gay vote!
QuoteRomney was bully who cut off a gay pupil's fringe, say ex-school friends (http://www.smh.com.au/world/romney-was-bully-who-cut-off-a-gay-pupils-fringe-say-exschool-friends-20120511-1yg4m.html)
"They came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground," the article said, "As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors."
"It was a hack job," recalled one of the friends, Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer and childhood friend of Romney, who said he was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. "It was vicious." Another of the friends, Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor who volunteered for Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, admitted helping restrain the boy. "It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me," he said.
Mr Romney's campaign initially denied the incident. "Anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn't have a mean-spirited bone in his body," Andrea Saul said in a statement.
"The stories of 50 years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents."
In a separate allegation, Mr Romney is said to have taunted a different closeted gay student by chanting "Atta girl!" every time the boy tried to speak in class.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 10, 2012, 10:55:57 PMThere goes the gay vote!
Popped into a couple online news sources - WP included. The user comments offer some free entertainment, that's for sure. How long will Romney be dogged by this incident? Oh, probably shouldn't have used the word 'dogged.'
I personally am for gay marriage. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th Century. They should be treated and given the same rights as people who are heterosexual. Whether Obama endorsed gay marriage for their vote is up in the air but I personally don't believe it is a country's job to tell people how to live their lives and to deny them the same rights heterosexual couples have seems unjust.
Quote from: Christo on April 13, 2012, 10:28:29 AM
Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? TNR, here (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=32651b8553-TNR_Daily_041312&utm_medium=email#comments)
Very, very innarestin.
The Romney revelation wasn't much of a surprise, was it? He was a passable governor in Massachusetts where his personal creepiness was in check.
Romney will not be elected President. In the next few months his support will decline. Conservatives don't like him any better than they liked McCain, and moderates are revolted by his behavior and lack of principles. Liberals will not sit on the sidelines. Obama will win, not in a landslide but by a comfortable margin.
The only reason Romney is the nominee is that the Republican Party has crossed a threshold. They can no longer field a candidate acceptable to the broad middle of the electorate that can pass muster with the party filtering mechanism, now in the control of people who used to inhabit the dark corners, locked in attics etc. It a God, gold and guns party, no one else is welcome and not many want to be.
There is a solution. We could move to nonpartisan reapportionment, which would force both parties to compete for the center. It's a state level fix, so it will take time to implement, but I think it's coming.
Quote from: drogulus on May 12, 2012, 07:09:56 AMWe could move to nonpartisan reapportionment
Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly. Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2012, 07:17:11 AM
Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly. Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.
It will happen. There are different models used now, and each state will choose its own. Most will be bipartisan commissions appointed by governors and state legislators, some will arrive by ballot measures. The hurdle is the state party apparatus which benefits most from partisan extremism. Sometimes it will take a referendum to get past opposition, sometimes a reform governor will do it, fulfilling a campaign promise. Once a few more states implement it momentum will build.
Quote from: drogulus on May 12, 2012, 07:36:53 AMIt will happen.
Wishful thinking. Both parties benefit from it too much to change to some idealized or even practically non-partisan scheme. A state here or there may change, but it will not sweep the nation in the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 or more years. Of the various mechanisms used to thwart partisanship, only open primaries are valuable, and then only to an extent. Bipartisan commissions, if evenly split, produce nothing (see the FEC), and ballot measures are just awful, leading to years of legal challenges and unintended consequences. None of this is new. The Founders themselves warned of the evils of factions - right before splitting into factions. And do remember, any reform can be rolled back, altered, or manipulated.
Those are the reasons it will be tough. It will spread slowly.
Quote from: drogulus on May 12, 2012, 07:52:29 AMIt will spread slowly.
Again, the term gerrymandering is 200 years old, but the practices it describes are even older. Electoral shenanigans are as old as the Republic. Much older, if one looks to other, ancient examples. This doesn't bother me a great deal. As long as their are at least two parties constantly fighting for the upper hand, it will prevent one from gaining too much power over the nation as a whole. As long as that doesn't happen, things are good. Plus there's more entertainment to be had.
I share your distrust, if that's what it is, of referenda. Occasionally they accomplish something worth doing. Most of them are nuisance issue stuff.
I'm less impressed by 200 year old, or 2,000 year old precedents. If you think things can't change they will anyway, but more slowly. It's best to try to move them along if you favor them.
Quote from: drogulus on May 12, 2012, 08:13:35 AMI share your distrust, if that's what it is, of referenda.
I'm less impressed by 200 year old, or 2,000 year old precedents. If you think things can't change they will anyway, but more slowly. It's best to try to move them along if you favor them.
The state I live in is rotten with initiatives, most of them awful, and the entire concept of an initiative is in many ways incompatible with constitutional government. What's the point in constitutional government if a majority of a minority of ill-informed citizens can change it every two years? (Most initiatives involve changing the state constitution in these parts.)
As to 200 or 2000 year old precedents, it's not so much that I think things cannot or do not change, but rather that one of the things to aspire to is to make systemic change as difficult and cumbersome as possible. Such change
should be difficult. In addition, I look at history and see the desire of people to control others, irrespective of whether the government is monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. Best to make such control as fleeting and inconsequential as possible. I also see that whatever reforms or changes may be implemented, some people will always try to mitigate the effects of such changes.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2012, 08:26:45 AM
The state I live in is rotten with initiatives, most of them awful, and the entire concept of an initiative is in many ways incompatible with constitutional government. What's the point in constitutional government if a majority of a minority of ill-informed citizens can change it every two years? (Most initiatives involve changing the state constitution in these parts.)
As to 200 or 2000 year old precedents, it's not so much that I think things cannot or do not change, but rather that one of the things to aspire to is to make systemic change as difficult and cumbersome as possible. Such change should be difficult. In addition, I look at history and see the desire of people to control others, irrespective of whether the government is monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. Best to make such control as fleeting and inconsequential as possible. I also see that whatever reforms or changes may be implemented, some people will always try to mitigate the effects of such changes.
I agree with all of your points, though I will try to conceal my disappointment. Yes, they will try, we will try, and so on. Nevertheless, the country was formed by people who ignored your sensible advice. We should do our best to fuck them over big time. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on May 12, 2012, 08:34:54 AMNevertheless, the country was formed by people who ignored your sensible advice.
Not true at all. Look how hard it is to change the Constitution. That's brilliant. Federalism, enumerated powers, etc. The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers. For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors. Good stuff.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2012, 07:17:11 AMLet's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly. Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.
You need someting like this:
Quote...the AEC [Australian Electoral Commission (http://www.aec.gov.au/About_Aec/)] has one primary outcome for which we are funded, namely:
1. Maintain an impartial and independent electoral system for eligible voters through active electoral roll management, efficient delivery of polling services and targeted education and public awareness programs.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 13, 2012, 06:48:07 PMYou need someting like this:
Won't happen. Both parties benefit too much from the current system. Democrats may like to occasionally talk of reform - but not really of their safe districts. Some members of Congress are elected and reelected with profoundly undemocratic margins - in 2008, some representatives were elected with 75, 80, even 90%+ of the vote. The highest I recall was a Democrat from New York who had something like 95 or 97% Even dictators running phony elections don't give themselves that much of the "vote." (Saddam Hussein was an exception.) Any commission would be appointed evenly between the duopoly. We'd need to move to open primaries, and even then we'd need a way to allow for more than just two candidates, since the reality in some parts of the country is that you'd have two Democrats or two Republicans running against each other in the general election.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2012, 08:47:26 AM
Not true at all. Look how hard it is to change the Constitution. That's brilliant. Federalism, enumerated powers, etc. The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers. For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors. Good stuff.
You're looking after the fact. I thought the quoted remark referred to the revolutionary origins of the US. Neither parliament nor king was asked whether there should be a new country and if so, what should it be like? :)
Quote from: chasmaniac on May 14, 2012, 08:54:15 AMNeither parliament nor king was asked whether there should be a new country and if so, what should it be like?
That's certainly true, but I don't see a whole lot of support for fundamental structural change in this country. Oh, sure, people whine about, say, the Electoral College about once every four years. Or perhaps they whine about lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices (which Rick Perry, of all people, offered a sensible solution to). Or maybe corporations being treated like people, which is not strictly true, but it's a Big Idea du jour. (Okay, it's been an issue since at least Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, but it waxes and wanes.) But these issues can be addressed without fundamental change - simply (hah!) amend the Constitution and/or pass the appropriate legislation.
Some people want "real" change. Some people want "substantive democracy." I got it. But do such desires actually correspond to the ideals and plans of the Founding Fathers (if that even matters)? Would such changes really be for the better? And how would that look? And who would lead such a change?
Todd for Pres!
"If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve."
Quote from: eyeresist on May 14, 2012, 06:44:18 PM
Todd for Pres!
Um.. no. Don't you know Todd's last name?
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/cbsnews/2008/10/09/image4511581x.jpg)
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2012, 07:03:17 PMUm.. no. Don't you know Todd's last name?
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/cbsnews/2008/10/09/image4511581x.jpg)
I have no idea who that is. [/Australian]
Quote from: eyeresist on May 14, 2012, 07:05:53 PM
I have no idea who that is. [/Australian]
Todd Palin, the husband of Sarah.
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2012, 09:19:21 AM
Some people want "real" change. Some people want "substantive democracy." I got it. But do such desires actually correspond to the ideals and plans of the Founding Fathers (if that even matters)?
I am not American so probably I should not comment on this but I can't help it.
What resemblance is there between the specific late 18-th century conditions in the 13 British American Colonies and the specific early 21-st century conditions in the United States of America that would warrant the ideas and plans of the FF and the resulting Constitution are still valid and functional?
Quote
who would lead such a change?
Why, another
39 men under the guise of "
We the People"... It's been done before and it worked. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 12:01:32 AMWhat resemblance is there between the specific late 18-th century conditions in the 13 British American Colonies and the specific early 21-st century conditions in the United States of America that would warrant the ideas and plans of the FF and the resulting Constitution are still valid and functional?
Sorry, I can't read that without thinking this:
(http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/thumb/7/7d/Fantastic_FourHead.jpg/180px-Fantastic_FourHead.jpg)
Quote from: eyeresist on May 15, 2012, 01:24:09 AM
Sorry, I can't read that without thinking this:
(http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/thumb/7/7d/Fantastic_FourHead.jpg/180px-Fantastic_FourHead.jpg)
Perhaps today I'm dumber than usual but could you please explain me the trick? :)
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 01:28:11 AMPerhaps today I'm dumber than usual but could you please explain me the trick? :)
You used "FF" as an abbreviation of "founding fathers" (I bolded it in the quote), but for some reason those initials remind me first of a certain superhero team.
Probably a mental residue of the movie campaign a few years ago.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 15, 2012, 02:07:35 AM
You used "FF" as an abbreviation of "founding fathers" (I bolded it in the quote), but for some reason those initials remind me first of a certain superhero team.
Oh I see. Thanks.
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 12:01:32 AMWhat resemblance is there between the specific late 18-th century conditions in the 13 British American Colonies and the specific early 21-st century conditions in the United States of America that would warrant the ideas and plans of the FF and the resulting Constitution are still valid and functional?
Well, it is true that human nature and the nature of power have fundamentally changed since the 18th Century, so clearly it makes sense to scrap a constitutional form of government that purposely limits power. Unlimited, centralized power has certainly worked out well in other parts of the world.
Quote from: Todd on May 15, 2012, 05:49:04 AM
Unlimited, centralized power has certainly worked out well in other parts of the world.
It's always a win!
Quote from: Todd on May 15, 2012, 05:49:04 AM
Well, it is true that human nature and the nature of power have fundamentally changed since the 18th Century, so clearly it makes sense to scrap a constitutional form of government that purposely limits power. Unlimited, centralized power has certainly worked out well in other parts of the world.
You certainly can do better than that. ;D
Do you really believe that the US Constitution as it is now will last until the end of the world?
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 05:52:18 AMDo you really believe that the US Constitution as it is now will last until the end of the world?
It needn't. It can be amended. Plus, a new constitution could be established via a convention. And of course it will not last until the end of the world since the United States will not last that long. No nation will. I just don't see lots of brilliant ideas that strike me as better than what we have now. The more adamantly people claim their ideas are better, the more I don't believe them.
Quote from: Todd on May 15, 2012, 06:06:27 AM
I just don't see lots of brilliant ideas that strike me as better than what we have now.
What I find repugnant, not only in the US but across the world, is the partidocracy, i. e. no man of value and talent can serve the nation as representative if he is not regimented in a political party - but I confess I have no idea about how this situation can be avoided. ???
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 06:12:45 AMbut I confess I have no idea about how this situation can be avoided.
It cannot, at least in free societies where people can assemble and form associations. Like minded folks come together to gain more power and influence than they have on their own. Some overriding authority - ie, the State - would be the only entity that could prevent that from happening, with all people aspiring to govermental roles required to act within prescribed guidelines, and required to belong to, or not belong to, specified organizations. There are several different names for this. Pick your favorite.
Quote from: Todd on May 15, 2012, 06:42:31 AM
all people aspiring to govermental roles required to act within prescribed guidelines, and required to belong to, or not belong to, specified organizations.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. ;D
Ron Paul effectively ends presidential campaign
. . . but urged his fervent supporters to continue working at the state party level to cause havoc for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0514/Ron-Paul-effectively-ends-presidential-campaign)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2012, 10:01:42 AM
Ron Paul effectively ends presidential campaign
. . . but urged his fervent supporters to continue working at the state party level to cause havoc for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0514/Ron-Paul-effectively-ends-presidential-campaign)
Quote from: Phillip ElliottVanquished foe Santorum has 264 and Newt Gingrich has 130. Paul badly trails with 104 delegates.
Mr Elliott: In all fairness, Gingrich trails just about as badly as Paul.
Ron Paul, ever the team player. Maybe that accounts for the high legislative success rate.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2012, 08:47:26 AM
Not true at all. Look how hard it is to change the Constitution. That's brilliant. Federalism, enumerated powers, etc. The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers. For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors. Good stuff.
I agree it's a good system. I'm glad that it was created by people who believed that you could change things (like me) and then made it more difficult for people (like me) to do it.
Frankly, the Constitutional idolatry that many Americans seems possessed of strikes me as a peculiar form of paganism. The whole thing about checks and balances, limited power and making abrupt changes as difficult as it gets is marvelous at theoretical level but let's have a look at the facts.
The size and scope of the US government has been increasing ever since its establishment, slowly at the beginning and rapidly in the 20-th century. The US government today (and during the whole last century) is/was bigger and has/had more power and influence over the lives of the American citizens than poor King George III and his government ever dreamed of. The same checks and balances that were in force during Washington, Adams and Jefferson operate during Obama (or Bush or Clinton or you name it) - yet the difference in the scope and size of the power of these presidents is obvious. So, there you have on one hand a Constitution whose explicit aim is to limit the power of the government and on the other hand a government operating under the selfsame Constitution and whose power has increased at an exponential rate in the last 100 years. Can someone please explain me (a) this paradox and (b) why such a Constitution should be regarded as a nec plus ultra in matters political?
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 11:52:38 PMFrankly, the Constitutional idolatry that many Americans seems possessed of strikes me as a peculiar form of paganism.
It's certainly odd, though hardly the only odd thing about the US (or any country, really). Considering how well the creation of an entire political system out of wholecloth usually works out, I'd say the results were pretty good.
Any formal constitution is written in words. Words count for nothing until people start putting them into effect. What people do with the hallowed constitution varies over time, sometimes greatly. Was Jim Crow constitutional? I guess it was, until it wasn't, unless it still is. Slavery? The income tax?
Obviously the words matter, but they don't by themselves determine anything.
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 11:52:38 PMFrankly, the Constitutional idolatry that many Americans seems possessed of strikes me as a peculiar form of paganism.
I guess it can be looked at that way, but the Constitution has created a political environment that has allowed the US to become the richest nation on earth, and one which achieved, in 1989, and still holds, however tenuously, a degree of global hegemony, all while never descending into a totalitarian nightmare, even in the worst economic conditions. Even our most tyrannical presidents - Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR - were constrained. That the original founders didn't envision such reach and scope for the federal government is both irrelevant and incorrect. It's irrelevant precisely because the Constitution is structured to allow for change and it is short and somewhat vague – no document hundreds of pages long that addresses specific policy questions like the monstrosity for the EU – which allows for different interpretations at different times, as happened no later than the Whiskey Rebellion. It's incorrect because Hamilton and his followers very clearly wanted a powerful central government from the start, and even a figure as august as Jefferson spoke of an Empire of Liberty. Do you think he actually thought such an idea, even if just figurative, would come to fruition just because? He certainly didn't think the Barbary pirates would stand down without a use of force undertaken without a declaration of war. Of course the founders, Hamilton and his ilk possibly aside, could never envision the current state of affairs. So what?
Quote from: drogulus on May 15, 2012, 08:08:59 PM(like me)
A peculiarly banal argument - only you and those who think like you understand the Constitution. Got it Ms Bachmann.
Quote from: chasmaniac on May 16, 2012, 02:55:44 AMThe income tax?
A perfect example where the Constitution was amended.
Quote from: Todd on May 16, 2012, 06:05:27 AM
even a figure as august as Jefferson spoke of an Empire of Liberty.
Fine, except that the two don't mix too well. ;D
QuoteOf course the founders, Hamilton and his ilk possibly aside, could never envision the current state of affairs. So what?
So nothing just that the Constitution could not prevent the current state of affairs.
Look, I don't want to offend you or other Americans but the almost mystical trust you put in a piece of paper is rather odd. Yes, it worked well until now but nothing warrants it will forever.
As for the American democratic exceptionalism I think it is overplayed. Switzerland is even older a democracy than US. Also, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway (except the brief interlude of German occupation where appropriate) never knew any dictatorship.
Quote from: Florestan on May 16, 2012, 06:41:43 AMYes, it worked well until now but nothing warrants it will forever.
Of course it won't.
Quote from: Florestan on May 16, 2012, 06:41:43 AMAs for the American democratic exceptionalism I think it is overplayed.
Of course it is.
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2012, 11:52:38 PM
Frankly, the Constitutional idolatry that many Americans seems possessed of strikes me as a peculiar form of paganism. The whole thing about checks and balances, limited power and making abrupt changes as difficult as it gets is marvelous at theoretical level but let's have a look at the facts.
The size and scope of the US government has been increasing ever since its establishment, slowly at the beginning and rapidly in the 20-th century. The US government today (and during the whole last century) is/was bigger and has/had more power and influence over the lives of the American citizens than poor King George III and his government ever dreamed of. The same checks and balances that were in force during Washington, Adams and Jefferson operate during Obama (or Bush or Clinton or you name it) - yet the difference in the scope and size of the power of these presidents is obvious. So, there you have on one hand a Constitution whose explicit aim is to limit the power of the government and on the other hand a government operating under the selfsame Constitution and whose power has increased at an exponential rate in the last 100 years. Can someone please explain me (a) this paradox and (b) why such a Constitution should be regarded as a nec plus ultra in matters political?
You have to understand--the Constitution they are idolizing is one that hasn't been in operation since at least the 1850s, and probably never was in operation to begin with. The document represents an idea to them, and the fact that the idea never operated in the real world, or at least crumbled into uselessness when it met the real world (that's what the Civil War was about, in a way) does not register with them.
Nor do they seem to understand that using the US political system of c. 1800 as an ideal suggests to others that they think it's fine to deny basic rights to anyone who isn't a non White and a male
For these people, the current US system of government doesn't really operate under "their" Constitution, so all the grand centralization that's been going on since the Civil War is illegitimate. They want a government which only acts when it's really necessary,
and lets the rich loot the poor at will, because that's only fair and lets people alone to live their lives and make money as they see fit, because that's the only fair way to do it.
And they also usually want a US military that's strong enough to make everyone else in the world do whatever they want or think is good for the rest of the world. The fact that this goal makes reaching the other goal is also one of those things that fails to register with them. And very strangely, these same people have by and large reached the conclusion that it's fine for the state and local governments to act tyrannically. It's only the Federal government that they worry about.
That said, the Constitution does have a semi divine status in American Culture, as an expression of American uniqueness--it's one of those things that most Americans think of as evidence that we're better than others. Other countries have constitutions, but ours was the first and often enough the model for many of them. (I'm pretty sure Switzerland did not have one in 1789, and it actually differs in some important ways from the US version.) Nor did all those constitutions last (for instance, just how many constitutions have the French gone through since the Bastille fell?), or actually work the way they should have on paper (for instance, the Soviet Union's enumeration of basic rights in its Constitution versus the actual practice). We've managed to make it through two centuries with (officially at least) the same basic document, and only one great spasm of violence that couldn't be handled under that document (the Civil War).
But the real basis of American prosperity has nothing directly to do with the Constitution. It's the fact of our geographical location--isolated enough from other countries that we could develop the resources of of most of one vast continent without intereference from outside. The Constitution and the system it set up allowed us the stability to do that.
Five things Ron Paul wants from the Republican National Convention (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0522/Five-things-Ron-Paul-wants-from-the-Republican-National-Convention/Ron-Paul-wants-to-change-the-soul-of-the-GOP)
Surprisingly, #4 is Stockhausen.
Is Donald Trump secretly supporting President Obama? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0530/Is-Donald-Trump-secretly-supporting-President-Obama) Quote from: Peter GrierBut according to Trump, the press is protecting Obama, just like it protected Nixon from the Watergate allegations. Or something like that.
Quote from: Noah Glynn"At this point, I suspect that Trump no longer believes in the Birther nonsense himself, and the only reason he keeps talking about it is to increase his publicity"
I think this is probably the best interpretation of The Donald's crusade. I would amend it to state that Trump probably never believed the Birther nonsense, or even really cared.
Romney is in the clear now. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/buddy-roemer-ends-campaign-/1)