Election Day Open Thread
A new open thread, all wrapped up in shiny paper, just for you.
A general question: What is your opinion on the need for more active moderation here? By that, I mean someone jumping into threads and providing admonishment for posters who stray into the personal attack territory, somewhat along the lines of what happens at the Forum.
My own two cents is that generally we're all tough enough to fight our own battles and therefore only the most egregious examples deserve active moderation. When it's been necessary here, I have simply edited the posts to remove the offending words, rather than include the, er, finger-waving lecture, but I'd conform to whatever guidelines are decided upon. Your thoughts?
Also, can we agree to retire the word "spew"? ;-)
- Purpleface's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
No way!
"spew" is visually evocative and denotes an unthinking reflex to eject messy and unpleasant material. Which is highly relevant description of many a political comment. Is there another vulgar connotation besides vomit associated with the word that I'm missing?
A certain political assembly tried to have the word "weathervane" banned from its sessions. A spoof news report then compiled a list of expressions synonomous with chasing the political winds and tried to get the reps to use them. Anyhoo, point is unless the words are clearly offensive by themselves (profanity, hate-speech), I don't think there's much point in trying to enforce polite phrasing. And I say this as the leading recipient of recent ad-homs (all from the same poster, unfortunately. I must look to broaden my ability to cause ire.).
I agree that all the whining about "who killed swordscrossed" notwithstanding, we are indeed tough enough to fight our own battles. Trading barbs can even be good for debate. I love to refer to a quote from the immortalized Calvin and Hobbes:
See PF, if you weren't such a muffin head* you might have thought of that yourself :)
* That was Calvin's follow-up to Hobbes after the latter responded with an eye-roll. I just couldn't leave it out.
Victim in Fatal Car Accident Tragically not Glenn Beck
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim_in_fatal_car_accident
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Luckily Glenn Beck is in the hospital
being well treated, in his own tweeted words, by the "AMAZING Drs/nurses" at the hospital after having his appendix removed.
Has Beck lost his mind? He is praising workers (communists) that might belong to the marxist training camp, Obamabot worshipping, Acorn loving SEIU, the very folks he was been throwing profuse amounts of verbal feces at for months now.
I'm only half stupid
Ya, this is a wonderful thing....
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail;
Failure to Comply, 5 Years in Prison...
Its just great to be an American, or as we're known now days, the proletariat.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Unsurprisingly disingenuous
The penalty for not buying into some insurance plan is an additional tax (same as the Massachusetts plan that Comrade Romney signed into law). The penalty for refusing to pay your taxes has always held the possibility of jailtime.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Do you prefer paying for other people? That's what you're doing
now. Everyone here who pays for insurance is subsidizing those who don't & seek Emergency Room treatment. We are all the ones covering that tab.
Universal Care is cheaper. Single Payer would be even cheaper but all you 'fiscal conservatives' freak out over the actual prospect of saving money & covering everyone. Start yellin' "Comunism" and some such.
The MSM is both annoying me & making me laugh.
The meme I'm referring to is the election results. The Village (idiots) are almost all claiming some ungodly defeat of Democratic aspirations and Obama's plans in particular. Tweety, et al are almost all sounding like Juan Williams. That is annoying.
Then I go and read Balloon Juice, GOS, Atrios & I have to laugh at how they are able to make fun of 'em. I mean, the whole ginning up of 'the decided results' are so contradictory. Yea 2 Governorships went to Republicans (who both refused Rush, Bible Spice & Glenn Beck's help) and two Democratic Congresspersons were elected, one seat in particular which hadn't gone out of Republican hands since Reconstruction, and yet it was Democrats who got a drubbing. It's so funny too because they were all prepared to proclaim Hoffman the new model. Yet he got booted in a Republican district and from the MSM you get what.....crickets. Well crickets and the Village (idiots) all saying that Obama was drubbed. They go with what they want regardless of it's truth or not.
John Cole has a post that says much of this:
"They Got Nothing...Except the Media". www.balloon-juice.com/
The narrative seems to be
the Republican implosion is somehow very bad news for the Democrats.
It reminds me of the constantly repeated implication, from the media, that Saddam Hussein attacked the US, which is why we sent our troops to fight for 'freedom' for in Iraq.
I'm only half stupid
Well at least you go that part correct ...
:)
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Happy Marine Birthday
On Nov. 10th, 1775 a militia of continental marines was approved by resolution of the Committee of Continental Congress after much political discussion and meetings at the Tun Tavern in Philadelphia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Marines
A beer or two to celebrate is in order.
I'm only half stupid
Fighting to win.....
in Afghanistan.
I just don't see how this is possible.
We don't have enough men in the military to put in 40,000 troops. That wouldn't even put a dent in the number needed to win.
The government of Afghanistan is hugely corrupt. The 'aid' the US gives them to rebuild their country is lining the pockets of the corrupt Afghani elite.
We are already bribing the Taliban to protect us while we transport equipment.
We would have to rebuild the entire country at huge expense, at a time when our own country is essentially broke.
Part of the US plan is to destroy the poppies that are the only source of income for the poorest of rural communities, who have to watch as uniformed men destroy their livlihood. I assume this infuriates the locals. Taking away a mans means of supporting his family is a good way to create even more enemies.
There are said to be only about a hundred al_Queda in Afghanistan at this time.
This whole situation is a lose lose, in my humble opinion. I see no good options.
I'm only half stupid
This Afghanistan is a debacle of Oba-mao's making ...
He inherited a relative stable situation which was clearly heading for victory and managed it into what could easily become a stinging defeat, thanks in large part to his own inaction.
My god, his words say that he cares about the troops in harm's way but by his own actions he refuses to send reinforcements to protect those in need. What kind of a leader does such a dispicable thing, and just to pander to the worst wackos in his party for political points?
In my book, Oba-mao's actions speak very much louder than is (forked-tongue) words.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As the Republican War continues
The immigrant bashing from the GOP, the call for English only as the National Language has been turned on its head as war between the conservatives and the GOP continues.
Following the drama on RedState, we learn 'the inside' dirty tricks that Republicans use to win.
The way too liberal Charlie Christ of Florida, was outed on RedState for allegedly creating a fake twitter following of thousands.
The conservatives support Charlie's opponent Marco Rubio, who has been endorsed by the Club for Growth.
Amazingly a site has popped up, therealmarcorubio.com that exposes Rubio for not speaking English in a video!
http://race42008.com/2009/11/11/the-race-card-and-rubio/
Is this real, or was it created by RedState to sockpuppet the sock puppets. It's fun to watch RedState call out all the dirty tricks they used so cheerfully themselves.
Reading the comments from the link is enlightening. Republicans bashing Republicans for supposedly playing the race card.
If any of this makes sense to you, let me know?
I'm only half stupid
Now that the Republicans are not in power any longer, however,
The Democrats, including President Obama, own this mess, and the ball is now in their court.
+3
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A new paradigm is in order
We all own this mess.
Instead of looking for who or what to blame, we should be looking for 22nd Century solutions.
I'm only half stupid
Heartily agree
Not that we're like to actually see that, of course, but I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
OK, I'll buy in ...
Here's a proposal for a solution to a mess that is on everyone's mind: Climate Change.
I propose we ignore it, policy-wise at least. The climate has been changing for as long as this has been a planet and there is nothing that we pathetic humans can do to keep it from continuing to do so.
Let's feed people instead of turning grain into fuel.
Meta: This post is a serious comment to promote some discussion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Agreed, for different reasons
With a couple of caveats and comments:
--Policy-wise, we should be heavily focused on alternative energy anyway (and should have been doing so for the last forty years), not just because of greenhouse gas emissions. Internal combustion is better than nothing, but it's highly inefficient and creates a host of secondary issues. We have the technology to do better. Much better.
--Even with the best of intentions and draconian measures that no one wants to actually live with, we may have very little to no impact on whatever climatary change is underway. Anyone who says otherwise is severely minimizing the chaotic nature of the ecosystem. We just don't know with any level of certainty.
--Forewarned is forearmed. Humanity is supremely adaptable. Let's try to better our overall society so that mankind will be at the top of his game for whatever Nature decides to throw our way.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I propose
a jobs program.
If we don't create jobs we are in for a world of hurt.
I don't care if that means adding to the deficit. We need a stimulus of some kind for jobs.
IF we lose jobs the deficit grows as a proportion to GDP. If we spend money to create jobs the over all economy improves and the deficit shrinks as a proportion to the GDP. There is no other solution.
I'm only half stupid
OK, but ...
Wasn't Obama's historic spending spree on the first stimulus package supposed to keep us below 9% unemployment or some such? Obviously it's not working. So rather than add even more to the deficit why not repeal the useless crap that is already in place and put the same money towards true job creation ... sustainable small business type jobs creation which could grow the economy over time. The current porkulus package just isn't gettin' the job done.
I agree with the need for such a thing. It could also take the form of reductions in current federal impediments to starting and running small businesses. Why small businesses? (a) Because that's where most of the jobs are anyway, (b) it spreads out the risk of collapse that is inherent with big businesses, and (c) it'll help people to help themselves in the long run.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you want to go that route
And if I may remind you, that the GOP was on a spending spree extra-ordinaire during the Bush years. Their doctrine of deregulation and cutting taxes, brought our economy to the edge of a cliff.
Instead of name calling,how about a real prescription for digging our economy out of the hole. You can't say that the President isn't trying to reach across the aisle. His bipartisanship effort is driving progressives mad.
I agree that much more could be done to stimulate small businesses. The problem is they are used to operating on debt, and the big banks aren't lending. I am all for refocusing some of the TARP on smaller banks that can lend to small businesses in local communities.
I'm only half stupid
Oh, please, Bush spending was minor compared to Obama ...
See for yourself: Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
.
I don't agree, but even if I did it should be obvious that Obama has subsequently pushed it over the edge.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Economics
I do believe that defecit spending in difficult financial times, as Obama is doing, is a much more reasonable proposition to the vast majority of folks who actually know anything about economics* than is defecit spending during financial booms, which is what Bush did.
*I am not one of those folks.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You may be right ...
but when did the Bush years suddenly become a period of financial booms? As I seem to remember, the Democrats were of the opinion that Bush oversaw the worst economy since the Great Depression ... that was until Obama took over. :)
You can't have it both ways, you know. So were the Bush years an time of financial booms or the worst economy since the Great Drepression? *
--------------------------
* Economy won't stop Obama's priorities, aides say
:
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The Bush Years
...were a time of GDP growth, for the most part. The fact that this translated mostly into the rich getting richer while the middle class faced stagnant wages is irrelevant to the general point that the government was taking in increased revenue, and should have been using it to pay down the debt, not increase it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Here we go again...
LIBERAL DEFAULT: "The Bush Years..."
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Ok, smartypants...
When responding to a question about the Bush years what would you suggest as a way to start the reply?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The years from hell?
We could always refer to the Bush years, as the years from hell.
Starting with 9/11, insert Katrina, Enron, the Iraq War, falling wages, tax cuts for the rich, stolen pension funds in the Madoff Scandal, and top if off with the icing on the deregulatory cake, the Global Financial Meltdown of 08. Yeah, I would prefer to depersonalize these years, not as the Bush years but simply as the Years from Hell.
I'm only half stupid
That may have been true at the time ...
but things have gotten much worse now that Obama is in charge. We are CURRENTLY living through the years from hell. Just look at what's happening with the economy, unemployment, and Afghanistan. You can't say that any of these are improved since Obama took office, but I clearly can claim the opposite.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I have the perfect epitaph
for the Bush years:
Mistakes were made.
It encapsulates the incompetence
, simplistic rhetoric 
and evasion of accountability 
trademarks of the Bush administration into three simple words.
Liberal take on what Bush is not responsible for
Liberal view of what IS Bush's fault
*Yeah that's right, the "porkulus" or whatever is Bush's fault. An analogy: if you're the engineer asleep at the switch and derail a train full of chlorine tankers, you're also to blame for traffic problems caused by my clean-up crew. Not me.
Some questions
I think this is a good start at a bit of perspective and fairness, and separating rhetoric from facts. I've got no quibble with your first set, but I have some questions about a few of the second ones.
Examples, please, showing how the tax cuts alone broke the budget. You seem to be saying that without the tax cuts, the budget would have been fine. I find it difficult to say that tax cuts are budget busters, when fingers can as easily be pointed on the other side of the ledger (excessive spending).
Agreed, however, Congress gets the blame for this one IMHO. There's that little thing called the Constitution, you know, that says Congress declares war, not the President. A lot of Democrats voted for war and for the budgets that fund it, so laying this entirely at George's feet is a bit dishonest. And the "but I believed what they told me" defense is crap. The Democrats were just as afraid of appearing weak and chickenhearted in response to 9/11 as most of the Republicans.
This sounds a bit vague. Every administration mades some lousy calls to satisfy their corporate sponsors. c.f. Healthcare Reform ;-)
That's just a cop out, IMHO. Economic activity is not controlled from the Oval Office. Many, many factors and actions by both parties fed into the fiasco. And as neither of us have any crystal balls (nor do the economists) only time will tell whether TARP and the spending bill was the right action. From the average man's perspective, have relatively severe economic times really been averted? Comparisons to the Great Depression are disingenuous, and make a mockery of the actual hard times people went through in the 30's. As of now, only what, 20% of the stimulus bill has actually been spent; so, if we've avoided The Next Great Depression already, can we stop now?
This is NOT to say that I disagree with the premise that George warrants the title of Worst President Ever. He certainly earned that. But let's be fair in allocation of blame. The Democrats are not and were never innocent bystanders.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Constitutional counterpoint overruled.
Uh, Congress didn't declare war. It and the executive were complicit in using the AUMF vote to justify invading a sovereign country. And please, please don't try to absolve Bush for doing things because the Consitution put it outside of executive prerogatives. Invading Iraq was a mistake that deserves condemnation. Invading without a formal declaration of war doubly so.
Besides, blame is not zero-sum. The fact that too many Dems were weak and chicken does not excuse Bush. Analogy: if you witness me beating someone to death and do nothing (or even cheer me on), you may be criminally negligent, but I am no less a murderer.
This only addresses one of your points, I know. I have to go play squash now but I tend to sink my teeth into the tax cut question later.
Okay
I guess I didn't see any "shared blame" emphasis in this point
It sounded like you were saying it was his fault. Your entire second set seems to be done in that vein...that Bush is entirely to blame for those items. Maybe I'm interpreting you incorrectly.
I'm not excusing George. I'm saying that the Democrats in Congress share the blame for the Iraq war. It's not just Bush's fault. To use your analogy, they are criminally negligent also. They failed to stop it, they voted to fund it, therefore they are also responsible.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You neglected to mention
the Republicans, who failed to stop funding for the war and therefore also are criminally responsible.
It's no secret that Bush tilted more power to the executive branch and used a heavy hand to get his way with Congress.
Neoconservatives hold the view that pure capitalism can save the world, by setting in motion 'the freedom agenda'. The goal in Iraq was to create a capitalist economy and the shining country on the hill.
As a good little anti-government capitalist, on the freedom agenda highway, you get to keep all of the money you make when you sell the rope to hang yourself with.
I'm only half stupid
Here's one
From the Heritage foundation
:
But wait a minute! Doesn't that show the opposite? Well, if the Heritage Foundation were reliable, it would. But they are a bunch of mouth-breathing moronic hacks funded by billionaires and are trying to ex post facto justify horribly regressive policies enacted during a recession. If you click and read through you'll notice the article uses the common correlation-implies-causality trick with developed country's tax burdens, but doesn't even bother to show correlation between hi tax rates and low GDP per cap. The results are utter BS.
Basically, if the enonomy did well in the 1990s with a 39% marginal rate and even better in the sixities with a much higher one, there's no reason to suggest that the tax burden is the primary (or even a significant) driver of growth.
Since it's impossible to isolate tax rates from other economic factors to determine their exact effect, on must rely on things like multipliers to see which fiscal option (Government spending the money itself or returning it to the taxpayer) is preferable. In general, most forms of spreading the wealth (in your face McCain!) with say, food stamps or unemployment benefits, works a lot better than the $600,000 dividend tax rebate to the plutocrat with his eye on a Costa Rican villa.
Besides, independently of the fiscal effect, the rich didn't need the money in 2001 or 2003 and for the most part didn't really earn it (I have little sympathy for trust fund babies and bond traders). Tax cuts weighted towards the rich is bad policy in a recession, and disasterous in a war.
The total value was something like 1.35T$ over 10 years, or a yearly hole in the budget consisting of more than half of Clinton's biggest surplus. The budgetary impact turned out to be not too far from the off-budget Iraq war spending, ironically. Horrible fiscal blunders, both.
Tax cuts during a time of war....
some say an unnecessary war under Bush ballooned the deficit. What do you think the overall cost of the IRaq War has been so far? Not to forget that the cost was put off budget, or not added to the deficit during Bush's tenure. Part of what you claim to be Obama's deficit is in fact putting the numbers on the books that Bush left out, including the unpaid 700 billion dollars cost of Medicare Part D.
The cost of the Iraq War, coupled with the consequences of diverting priorities from Afghanistan which we will pay for now for is going to be a minimum of a 5 Trillion dollars. Yet fiscal conservatives cheered for the war and tax cuts simultaneously.
You can keep going with this tit for tat justification for the Bush policies. I think it is important to look at what worked and what didn't going forward, but justifying bad decisions for purely partisan reasons is not a solution that takes us into the future.
Stop looking backwards, and offer actual solutions to these very real challenges.
I'm only half stupid
If Bush ballooned the deficit ...
Obama has been doing it twice as much. That's the point. As for looking backwards, you are the one that brought up Bush, not me! :) I just put your off-hand comment into an accurate perspective.
I have. Dump Obama's pork bill disguised as a stimulus package and redirect those same funds into small businesses to help the little guys get a leg up. Simple and direct.
As a Democrat, are you behind such a move or are you going to stubbornly cling to Obama's failed policy? :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Unabashed snickering and flat out f"ing ROTFLMAO....
Obama is a embarrassment!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
So GR
you're proposing we give small businesses handouts? For shame!
Oh, and much of the stimulus funds WERE directed to small businesses.
Unintended irony kills me
http://www.redstate.com/samdallas/2009/11/14/john-birch-society/#comment-9
the context is a discussion of the John Birch society and how the teabaggers have been unflatteringly compared to them. To which Neil Stevens (a frequent source of unintended comedy) says:
That Neil can say that without even a hint that he sees the vaguest tiniest conenction to the teabagger's insane claims of "Oba-Mao" is *&^%ing hilarious.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What makes you think the Oba-mao stuff ...
is associated with the tea baggers?
(p.s. I hope things are going well for you on the health front.)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4OK, so how does putting terrorists on trial in NY threaten us?
Really. I mean it. That's the line 'the right' is floating at least.
I just don't see how publically peeing in your pants to the national press makes someone an important person worth listening to.
By dividing us
United we stand. Divided we fall.
The intention of terrorism is to place an element of fear and distrust into a population. The Republicans seem to be doing their best imitations of the cowardly american. Pathetic.
I think Republican Political Gunslingers enjoy whipping up terror and fear to divide and conquer. They seem to be saying they don't believe that our country is strong enough to handle tough situations. Our legal system distinguishes us. We believe in justice.
I think this is a move to show the world, and the disbelievers in America, that those who wish to do us harm should be held accountable. We should want other countries to see us as a shining example, of how a good democracy, with solid institutions of justice that work. The Bill Kristols of the world see our country as 'too weak' to deal with terrorists.
The Republicans are politicizing this intentionally, throwing red meat to their snarling rabid base.
I'm only half stupid
Hammer meet Nail
You are correct. It doesn't make someone worth listening to. But it does make for good television.
Rudy's after publicity, nothing more. As are all the other talking heads.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It just needlessly increases the risk of some ...
jihadi taking the opportunity to make more headlines by disrupting the public trials. It creates a lightning rod for further attacks to coincide with the trials AND their location. They'd have a hard time making a show of it at Gitmo.
In that sense, they DO make us less safe. YMMV.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Attention new commentors
If you want to post comments, please do.
HOWEVER, comments with unrelated links, or links that appear in my judgment to be spam links, will be deleted.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Darnit!
I was planning on using Swordscrossed to launch my viral Male Enhancement marketing campaign.
Geeze ...
that actually sounds like it might be painful. ;-)
Meta: This post is just meant to be funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Only at first
It's a newly developed designer virus that causes permanent swelling in the nether regions. It was just bad timing that it coincided with H1N1. I had a slogan and everything: "Go ahead and sneeze in your hand! Your buddie's wife will thank you!"
Geez, I gotta be more careful with my adjective ordering.
Has it dawned on anyone
that since KSM, has not been convicted and executed yet, and is in US custody, that he is getting free health care at tax payers expense?
I'm only half stupid
Maybe we should charge prisoners for thier stay.
Just like some third world countrys do.
Joe Lieberman is such a dork. Did you see that today he ran the Senate Comittee hearing calling the shooter in Ft. Hood a terrorist attack. Yea it created momentary terror to the poor soldiers there but the guy was a crazy man not a terrorist.
He's toast now though. ( the 'terrorist' I mean)
It is unfathomable to me
that all of the blatantly obvious dangerous indicators and warning signs were right in front of all of the higher ups faces and were completely ignored. It is enormously incompetent or enormously suspicious.
Frankly I don't see that much difference in the crazy paranoid talk of the Ft. Hood shooter and the crazy paranoid talk of Glenn Beck. I consider Beck to be an unstable dangerous threat to our society equal to or greater than the Ft. Hood shooter and he has a public platform to indoctrinate his followers who celebrate his paranoid delusions as 'the truth'.
I'm only half stupid
Why the f*** didn't Obama stop this?
So why didn't Obama take action here? I mean isn't this sort of like the same level of expectation as when people complained about Bush and Abu Ghraib? Obama should have known. That he didn't simply shows how incompetent he is, or did he just not care?
Meta: This post is illustrating the absurdity of the left by mimicking their absurdity.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The United States is already a third-world country--with money.
n/t
All I have to do is look at my state government (CA).
That 67% super majority rule is killing us out here but we can't change it 'cause there's a 35% that won't vote for any taxes. They call it principle but by the state of things I call it misplaced lack of community attachment. The state isn't the enemy even though a certain portion of the population likes to view it as such.
Isn't it a bit more nuanced than that?
California is in an interesting position. But it's where it is partly due to a lot of different state government actions, many of which can be deemed "progressive." The higher level of taxation there is one of them. And like it or not, that level of taxation is having an effect on businesses and the jobs those businesses create.
Some others may be looking at the total amount the government is spending and seeing misallocation and excessive waste in some areas. I don't have the links, but hasn't there been talk about the service areas that California is cutting back on and which employees are being selected for furloughs, and whether the best choices are being made?
So, some portion of average Californians are saying "Higher taxes and ineffective management thereof are part of the problem and therefore I am not supporting giving you more right now. Find better answers."
Yet you frame it as a lack of community attachment and seeing the State as the enemy. Isn't it a bit more nuanced than that?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Understand I'm not a fan of the initiative process here as it
is. It's been too easy to put stuff on the ballot and have people vote for stuff and act like it costs nothing when each and every one costs another percentage of the states revenue over 30 or 50 years. When times are fat, you can ignore it but when times get tight you have no option but to continue paying when one should be tightening up spending. I believe that on the state level but I also supported increasing the federal defecit to spur Wall Street. I just wish Wall Street weren't such self serving bastards. But that is thier nature to chase the almighty dollar and put it on a pedestal in lieu of all else.
I voted against the proposition that changed the law. It used to be that a majority was all that was needed in order to raise revenue. Now with it at 67%, it just is too large. I thought it was undemocratic when it passed and I still do. You want to protect the peoples wallets from the tyranny of the majority with a supermajority? Well, OK....make it 55%, something that a true majority of the citizens, State Assembly & State Senate. 67 isn't a supermajority so much as an uncrossable chasm. And the state is paying for it dearly.
I can't believe it's Thanksgiving. It was August just a little
while ago. Somehow it seems that the fall is the quickest season. I don't know, maybe it's because it's so packed with holidays that one referance point to the next goes by so fast. By contrast the spring & summer seem so drawn out.
And to think it'll be x-mas right around the corner.
It's early but happy holidays one & all. Anyone doing anything fun for New Years eve?
I've seen this pattern of media manipulation before.
I have to hand it to the republicans out there. They are working the MSM system like symphonic conductors.
What I'm referring to is the daily blast of some outrage or another regarding the President & opposition party. I mean, they did the very same thing during President Clinton's terms. Now I don't mind an opposition party forcefully pushing their views. But I really think that when your 'Obama is leading us all to HELL' line is something like Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan....well I think the proper media response should be to possibly bring up the new outrage point, and then place that on the scale of things and say how it weighs out there. I don't need nor want the media to mock the points mercilessly like Jon Stewart but I do think they should laugh it off, not repeat the claims breathlessly.
The reason Republicans are doing it is good. They figure if they can use a misdirection play, 'Hey look at that over there!' they can take the wind out of energy progressives have in trying to reshape the system to be less bush43/Darth/Addington/Yu biased. Sadly, it's working. Really I have to think the Corporate media companies are in cahoots. They want to skew it to their advantage, and they side with Republicans. The piece de resistance is the continually repeating the 'liberal MSM' meme acting like it's remotely true. Keeps those damn libs off balance and makes them try to defend a strawman media that doesn't exist. And certainly doesn't exist in any sense that would paint progressive ideas in a remotely reasonable light.
And the band plays merrily along....
I don't think it is working quite as smoothly as it used to
People are sick to death of all the negativity.
I find it fascinating that Obama works successfully garnering good will around the globe employing a new policy of engaged dialogue with cooperation in mind, while some of his own countrymen, seeming throwbacks to the 19th century, are painting him with a broad brush of radical dangerous monkey slave/ animal man.
The Republican message is the loudest, but I am not sure it is being received that well, cloaked in all the fringe threats that seem designed to troll for assassins.
The bottom line as always is the gunslingers in the conservative message machine have the same message, tax cuts for the rich and more deregulation. I feel as though they have preyed upon the minds of the working class for decades to make poor folks think it is fun to give rich guys money (capital equity), cause it is for their own 'freedom' that they now have a pool in their backyard that they can't afford.
They have had the same message for decades which is all roads must lead to tax cuts for the rich and deregulation, because those with money are 'the chosen ones'. Jesus was really very very rich, which is why he could pretend to be so humble. (See the Family and C Street House).
I'm only half stupid
I see that in you, but the common press plays along with
the republican talking points of the day, no matter how vacuous.
I am an optimist.....
I think the debate in the common media is .010% improved. Here is to hoping it's a trend! :-)
Just imagine the headlines if the Dems had not gotten 60 votes to debate insurance reform.
"Is Obama's entire agenda now at risk?"
"Does Palin have a better chance in 2012 now that Obama is a complete failure?"
No discussion of the fact that insurance companies are the beauracrats between you and your doctor and their profits are up 458% in the last eight years. Projected out that means if the status quo prevails insurance premiums would be up 160% in the next decade. The cost of insurance is already eating up small business profits.
It's pathetic and amusing that the common media is just now starting to debate why we need insurance reform, as opposed to big govt takeover vs status quo. The tea party successfully stifled any rational debate. Maybe now folks will actually discuss the issue of skyrocketing cost that leaves too many behind.
I'm only half stupid
To each their own, but
I stand by my position that Barack Obama's a conniving hypocrite and a phony, particularly because he chose to escalate our war/occupation of Afghanistan and continue funding for Iraq, not to mention voting for the FISA Bill, even after having gone on record as opposing funding for our war on Iraq and opposing the FISA Bill and what it stands for.
That's hypocrisy at its greatest, I think.
Oh, this is rich. Really.
How myopic can you be?
Puh-lease. This is exactly what the left did to Reagan and GW.
Apparantly not ... at least not when you are part of the opposition party as illustrated above with Reagan and GW.
If you truly believe this then it must be saying something about how far left your politics truly are ... :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You have been missed.
n/t
Oh come on ...
this doesn't leave a guy much to work with in terms of snappy retorts ... :)
Tell you what, let's go gang up on IndependentMinded in her post on the virtues of gun control ... we have the gun thang in common, eh? Or am I remembering someone else?
P.S. At least you have the good graces to actually use an appropriate colored bar, not like ML. What's she running from do you think? :)
Meta: This post is just meant to be funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The many shortcomings of Democrats
probably. Y'know, by international standards, the median Democratic position on almost all issues isn't liberal at all. IThey're more in line with Canadian or British Conservatives, to name two.
I'm a Democrat mainly because it's the most efficient way to Not Be A Republican, but I can certainly understand ML's not wanting to share a label with Stupak, Landrieu and Liebermann.
Actually I have a British friend who points this out as well ...
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So you admit
to being kind of fringy, by international standards?
The US needs instant runoff and the consequential viable third party, so you guys can ditch the Lugars and Grahams, and we can ditch the Liebermans and Nelsons.
Rogue defined
by the dictionary means a scamp, a scoundrel, an inferior specimen, or an elephant that has been driven away from the herd for exhibiting savage, destructive inclinations.
The word rogue is derived from Latin, describing a begging vagrant.
Hmmm..... ! There is a certain attraction to the savage energy at the inner core of a mad elephant, gone rouge and then driven from the herd.
I'm only half stupid
WTF happened to BR?
With me gone all this time I would have thought this place would be humming along ... although I do see some old and new voices returning. So much for BR's "insights". :)
Meta: This post is just meant to be funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And in the "You go girl!" corner ...
We have Sarah wowin' everyone with her book tour ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/us/politics/22palin.html
I hope she runs in 2012. She would be a far sight better than Oba-mao
...
Meta: This post is meant to be a light-hearted joke which makes a serious point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Primary Ballot!*
Go on, put your dimpled chad where your mouth is
.
Are you planning on voting for her for real, or just trying to needle us by promoting another candidate with W-class intellect?
* Note the absence of rightroots darlings like Fred Thompson. Sometimes you vote with the slate candidates you have, not with the slate you wanted at an earlier date.
If she runs ...
I'll vote for her. For real.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hmm, maybe I should too!
Of course I should be careful what I wish for, and if saying stupid things on camera were an impediment to the presidency Bush wouldn't have been reelected.
The only one I believe has comparable political skill to Obama is Huckabee, so I'm most afraid of him getting the nomination. I'm glad the corporatists don't like him.
Sorry, but I have failed to rush to the bookstore...
...to buy "Going Rogue", written by
Sarah Palinghostwriter Lynn Vincent. So I guess everybody -1 is wowed by her book tour.skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Skymutt, my dear friend....
what's with the new digs? Has my long time suspicion that you were always a mild libertarian of sorts trying to be a moderate liberal been true?
Well, John--
I think I've moved a bit toward libertarianism over the past several years. You can probably take a little bit of the credit for that. I'm no card carrying yellow-bar, though.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Shucks. ;)
But I seriously doubt I had much to do with it. If you are/were a moderate liberal with some degree of conflict and discomfort in the style that I once was, it's a perfectly natural progression that I can sympathize with completely. I've been there. Your posts at times reminded me of my own thoughts as I struggled to straddle some line with Modern Liberalism that I eventually simply gave up on. I simply "came out". No more rationalizing.
What's up with the word "spew"?
And why are we against it?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's just my strange sense of humor
Which nobody gets ;-)
BR was being a bit repetitive, that's all, in his usual complimentary style.
It's nice to see you. Coming out swinging, I see.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Swinging?
Nah. Just being provactive to try and liven things up around here a bit, despite BR's (obviously now discredited) assertions that it has the opposite effect. (Well maybe not yet discredited, let me try poking things a bit more regularly and see if it has an effect!) :)
Are we truly down a monthly open threads here? It'll take a while for the regulars to come back, I guess. Where have people been spending there time while not here? As I said, I am actively trying to avoid the internets but I'll carve out a limited amount of time for SC. You all have a special place in my heart!
You should put up a new open thread. Let's talk about how the CRU Email Hacking is going to affect the whole lay person perspective on climate change ...
See: News About CRU Email Hack
Will this change people's minds or is it a non-event?
Meta: This post is a mix of serious and non-serious comments.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm sure it'll be all over
Fox News, but at worst it's a couple of guys who tweaked an already empirical model to match empirical results.
I remember doing an optics experiment in college where a computer sensor was supposed to record and plot the results. Somehow we screwed up the parameters and the plotted results matched the theoretical curve perfectly for some reason. So I had to add a random noise adjustment to make the results look believable.
Point is, analysts fudge data all the time but rarely for nefarious purposes. I doubt this story, or at least what I can make of it, will go anywhere.
So you think that it is acceptable ...
for one of the leading climate organizations to:
(a) Falsefy data.
(b) Actively exclude conflicting data.
(c) Manipulate the IPCC political process to exclude conflicting publications.
(d) Actively seek to manipulate the "peer review" process to exclude conflicting publications.
(e) Commit criminal acts to cover up all of the above (by destoying FOIA protected documents and information).
Really?
And you further believe that we should be basing global policy decisions which will quite literally affect every person on the planet on this type of information? That's a lot of faith, my man. I don't have that much.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey Bro, How have ya been....
Good to see ya, I just lost interest in the good fight, my bad...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yeah c'mon
I want more one-word links to Newsmax detailing how weak and/or tyrannical Obama is so I can respond asymmetrically by trashing Bush.
I'm far from convinced
they did any of that. They had outdated codes that wouldn't fit empirical results so they used averaging data hocus-pocus to curve fit. There's no real evidence that any resulting bias even favored the global warming is dire position.
They were a bit sloppy with data, is all. In my job I have to find ways around missing pieces of data and poorly fitting analysis results all day, even though my field isn't as important*. Either you do the best you can or you can't publish anything of significance.
Either you use good lab practices ...
and provide the data and information necessary to allow others to replicate your results, or whatever you manage to publish is completely useless from a scientific perspective.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Science has grey areas too
Extending observed trends over an unknown range is called extrapolation. Yes, it's much more uncertain, and a good scientist must be upfront when using such conjecture. The lack of transparency seems to be the principal sin here. And you can't claim that a few gaps in the methodology such a hugely complex model invalidates the whole thing. These guys are actually trying to figure out what's going on. They're not Rush Limbaugh or George will spewing canards about growing icecaps or 1970s global cooling alarmists.
I propose the following rule ...
People should be required to utilize the proper color bars. ML using a black bar is just wrong. We all know she should be a blue bar. Why are we letting this continue?
Now, the fact that Skymutt uses a baby poop brown bar shouldn't be a surprise to anyone! :)
Meta: This post is just meant to be funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fair enough, but...
I'm a federalist... A constitutionalist... A "republicic"an... I would be a RED BAR AND PROUD OF IT...if it weren't a pre-disposed implication by the site... Great point though!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
What's a
Republicican?
Who uses a brown bar?
I think you must be thinking of your sockpuppet, skymut with one T. I clearly use a yellow bar, as you can see :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!