Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D-MI) is facing possible expulsion by the city council. They may vote to remove him, have Gov. Jennifer Granholm do it, or censure him.
George Soros is attempting to become an economic philosopher. His new book explores the concept of "reflexivity" . In short, Soros believes people are overly confident about how the market works. He says that people exhibit bias and self-reinforcing errors -- none of which is taken into account by the "rational actor" model espoused by classical economics.
There are two elections today. The West Virginia Primary and a special election for Roger Wicker's vacated seat (MS-01 ). While all eyes are on the Democrats and Hillary Clinton's presumed margin of victory, Republicans will be electing a few more delegates to their convention. The special election is going to be very close. Travis Childers (D-MS) won 49.6% of the vote in the first round while his opponent Greg Davis (R-MS) got 46.3% of the vote.
On this day:
Steven Colbert was born in Washington, DC. (1964)
Protests begin in Tiananmen Square . (1989)
__________________________
I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
No more SQL errors (n/t)
I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Why does House Minority Leader John Boehner think we're idiots?
The Atlantic did an interview with Barack Obama in this months publication & titled it "Obama on Zionism and Hamas
. Obama is quoted as having said:
"the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience...He assailed Hamas as a terrorist organization and said the United States "should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements....Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." When asked if Israel besmirches the United States' reputation, Obama said "No, no, no." Then he said: "But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem..."
ABC News reports that John Boehner twisted this statement and said:
"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims," Boehner said. "Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism..."
I really don't appreciate manufactured controversy. It's abundantly clear from the Atlantic piece that Obama said nothing that Boehner said, in fact he said the opposite of what Boehner says he said. Yet here we have the Minority Leader making things up and telling the MSM (which dutifully paraded these lies to Americans) that Obama hates Americans and Obama can't be trusted by the Jews of this world. Other lesser figures have gone on to parrot Boehners statements to I guess reinforce the bullshit lies.
Why do these people think we are idiots? In this day and age of internet communications, how is it that they think they can pull the wool over Americans eyes so?
I'm going to be watching the repercussions of this one today just to see how many Malkin/Rush/O'Liely's try to run with this blatant lie.
OK then ...
what DID Obama mean by the following:
if not that Israel and their circumstances are a constant wound or sore that is infecting our foreign policy?
And how is Boehner's reference to Obama's statement:
twisting anything?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Duh
The constant wound is the fighting between Israel and Palestine, not Israel itself, or Palestine itself for that matter. Not particularly difficult to understand, now is it?
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Is this not another way of saying ...
which is precisely what Boehner was obviously referring to?
Besides which, you can't divorce "the sore" from "Israel" since it is the mere existence of Israel that is the cause of all the fighting, right? Hamas, the PLO, etc all say that the very reason they are fighting is that Israel exists ... and that they won't stop fighting as long as it does. So how can you honestly make the claim that Israel isn't the source of the fighting and, therefore, the constant sore?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No.
If a doctor tells me that I have a sore on my arm, should I
interpret that as him saying that I am a sore? Apparently Boehner would
interpret it that way, and apparently you would agree with him. Or
perhaps he would interpret it that way only if there was a hackneyed
partisan B.S. political point to be made.
If you believe this, then you must believe that there can only be one way to end the fighting. Elimination of Israel, or complete destruction of the Palestinians. I do not believe this.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Your analogy is flawed ...
If we were to draw a proper analogy, it would be more like your doctor telling you that you have a sore on your arm and you interpreting that to mean that he is somehow talking about the fact that your immune system is fighting some foreign invaders there.
By your way of thinking, the sore is not a place or a spot it is an action (i.e. the fighting). I doubt that this is how most people would interpret the words "sore" or "wound".
But let me ask you, then, given the statements and positions of groups like Hamas and the PLO vis-a-vis Isreal ... what would you say is the source of the constant "sore" or "wound" from their perspective and where does the "sore" or "wound" manifest itself geographically?
Hey, don't put words in my mouth. That was the position of Hamas and the PLO, not mine. But I will agree that if THEY believe this then what you say is most likely correct ... at least until THEY stop believing it.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'll get the popcorn
as we devolve into another semantics argument.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Did you read the link before this post...
Obama: [Israel needs to be secure, but the history of violence over there is a constant sore]"
Boehner: "[Israel is beacon of freedom, not a sore and Obama thinks Isreal is basically an apartheid state]"
Sounds accurate?
Maybe Boehner should read up on some of the reasons why Usama loathes the States.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
And thus...
...GoRight makes the point of why Boehner would intentionally misconstrue and lie about Obama's statement. Because his supporters will continue to intentionally misconstrue and lie about it as well to validate a decade of failed policies and "leadership" (moral and otherwise).
They are not interested in a serious, honest dialogue. They are interested in winning - the common good and the country be damned. Sorry, GoRight :)
Whoa, a voice from the wilderness ...
No need to be sorry. It's all part of our good natured verbal jousting that we use to fill the day.
But there is not misconstruing or lying going on here, intentional or otherwise. Obama said what he said and if you dig into what it actually means it implies that he considers Israel to be a persistent problem for us, hence his use of the phrase "constant wound".
And even IF you think I am being disingenuous here, well as SL can tell you, I am merely assuming that my/our political opponents are following the golden rule ... and I am thus duty bound to treat them as I believe they treat me/us. (Generally speaking, nothing specific to this post or site.)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hey GR
Check this out. I came across this info when looking around for various religions' interpretations of the Golden Rule. The one listed first sounds very similar to your interpretation: "react to the treatment given by others by responding to them in the same way." Take a guess as to which religion this is before clicking the link! ;>
Religions with a very different version of an "Ethic of Reciprocity"
Spoiler if you don't want to click the link (highlight text to read it):
__________________________Satanism!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
ROFL, that's a good find on your part.
But what makes you think I am not a Satanist? (Although maybe you do!) I have already expressed that I am not a Christian. Hmmmm.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Interesting perspective...
...on a related note, I have a very conservative friend that I've debated with for years over various political topics and tidbits. One of the things we've noticed is that we direct the same criticisms against the other's party/candidate/policy but always find some reason why it doesn't apply to our own.
So he will parse every fact/statement/platform from my "side" and go ballistic over the hypocricy and outright lies contained therein (or so he claims) while I'll be shocked at how skewed his point is and try to rationally explain why he is way off target on the same point. And vice versa.
And its not just language. There seems to be a big difference in how conservatives and liberals communicate in non-verbal ques and mannerisms as well. I think a lot of our partisan bickering would cease (for the better!!) if both sides actually tried to communicate in more neutral languages. Of course that wouldn't benefit the multi-billion dollar political parties and the crooks...excuse me...politicians...who benefit from them!
I actually agree with this ...
both sides intentionally assume the worst interpretation on the part of the other. I may, on the rare occasion, fall prey to this as well. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
true that. Hey..the author of The Atlanitic article has a reply
out today. In it Jeffery Goldberg says
:
"Mr. Boehner, I'm sure, is a terribly busy man, with many burdensome responsibilities, so I have to assume that he simply didn't have time to read the entire Obama interview, or even the entire paragraph, or even a single clause. If he had, of course, he would have seen that Obama was clearly calling the Middle East conflict, and not Israel, a sore. Why, there's no one who would disagree that the Middle East conflict is a "sore," is there?
I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me.
If he doesn't, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner's statement a "flat-out lie." In fact, I would add to Andrew's post, by calling Boehner's statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here."
I won't be holding my breath though.
Maybe its cognitive dissonence, w/google search.
http://www.swordscrossed2.org/node/1968#comment-80798
A few weeks back, Fox News trotted out old footage that had one of Fox News anchor claiming [not inferring or suggesting], but claiming there has to be a link between what happened on 9/11 and Saddam.
Bush doesn't have to claim something, if he could use peoples fear to think a secular government would use expired and useless chemical/biological weapons in conjunction with fundamentalist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Thats back in September 2003
And oh how times change things
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Welcome (back?) to Swords Crossed!
You've just described 90% of the dialogue that goes on here! :)
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I do my best to stay within that other 10%
;)
Poker living legend Doyle Brunson endorses Obama
link
Doyle says "poker players have to support Obama." I agree. McCain has been strengthening ties to the "church lady" wing of the Republican Party, and that can be nothing but bad news for poker players and their freedoms.
Wow, so now Obama is favored by "Big Gambling" as well ...
Who is it that runs "Big Gambling" in this country? Hmmmm.
Just some additional "content of his character" to throw into the discussion, I guess.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"Big Gambling"?
First of all, let's please separate the interests of the poker player and "big gambling"-- they are two entirely different interests. "Big Gambling" is actually often not in favor of laws which allow the existing poker sites to flourish-- the internet poker sites are seen as competition for the mega-casinos. Secondly Doyle Brunson does not speak for "Big Gambling", but he does have a lot of respect from the poker community. Thirdly, the support of what I'd call "Big Gambling" is pretty well split between McCain and the Dem candidates from what I've seen.
Anyone deriving revenue from hosting a poker site ...
is part of "Big Gambling", almost by definition. Although I will accept that Doyle himself may actually be a competitor to the other factions in "Big Gambling" to which I referred.
OK, so you agree that at least some of the group that you assumed I meant when I referred to "Big Gambling" supports Obama, right? In addition there are other factions, such as Doyle, who are likewise part of "Big Gambling" and who also support Obama, right?
So in effect, my original statement was pretty much accurate, right? "Big Gambling" supports Obama.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You said "Big Gambling FAVORS Obama"
"Favors" would imply that Obama has more support from "Big Gambling" than the other candidates, not just "some" support. So no, your statement was not accurate merely by the fact that Obama has "some" support from "Big Gambling". In fact, at this point, if you don't actually come up with some evidence that Big Gambling actually favors Obama, I may have to label your claim as just so much hot air ;-)
Meh.
No it doesn't. Is English your first language?
I assert that:
"Big Gambling" favors Obama [as opposed to the alternatives.]
in the same way that
"Small children" favor candy [as opposed to the alternatives.]
You're the one that brought "Big Gambling" (i.e. Doyle, et al) into this discussion, not me. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
*sigh*
LOL, hey skymutt ...
how's about we just agree that you misunderstood what I meant?
(Or is it too soon for that joke?)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If this is your standard
If the fact that
justifies the statement
then yes, your original statement is accurate, and also meaningless. By the same standard, one could say any of the following:
Democrats support McCain.
Conservatives support Obama.
Palestinian people support McCain.
Palestinian people support Obama.
All accurate statements according to you. All meaningless as well.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, that's what I get when I take one of skymutt's points ...
and simply run with it. Will I never learn? :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Will you never learn?
I sincerely hope you do! :)
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
LOL
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well done.
A simply delightful analysis, of GoRight logc.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Actually, it's not my logic.
It's the meaning of simple statements in the English language. I didn't make the rules, I just follow them.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It's Root
"Big Gambling" tends to support Libertarian hopeful Wayne Allyn Root more than anyone else. He's been racking up their endorsements because he's one of them.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
No surprise here ...
a story from the MSM about a Mayor being ousted and it never mentions his Democrat party affiliation even once. Hmmmm.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well what would Fox do?
They'd slap a (D) after the name of anyone who has just been indicted or had a public perp walk.
WWFD.....
Ohio's top Democrat Lawyer facing impeachment ...
House Democrats begin impeachment process for Dann
Enough said.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Allow me to highlight
more important parts:
Democrats are the minority in both houses of the general assembly. Why wasn't Speaker Husted and the Republican leadership out on front of this one?
And as far as I know, Dann has already been kicked out of the party. At the very least, the Democrats have "unendorsed" him, which means he isn't getting anything from the party in terms of resources.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Meh.
I have no problem with giving the Democrats credit for kicking the schmuck out once he was
__________________________exposedidentified. :)Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The stupid party strikes again ...
Here's a Michelle Malkin piece you Democrats might actually like:
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
And here I thought you'd like that RINO hunting tag
Michelle uses.
Tacky but funny....so long as some nut doesn't actually go out and kill any RINO's.
I know that this is a week late, but ...
I wanted to make sure to highlight it here ...
Not bad for a has been, eh?
Wow, 7 percent in Indiana. Not bad for someone who is supposedly irrelevant,eh?
Direct from the last election's loser, Rush most likely tilted the Indiana primary to Clinton.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I still can't see you goin' to school down at The Farm.
Yea, I can see you loving the Hoover Institute, but the whole rest of that Palo Alto thing isn't what you project here.
When did you graduate?
I was at Stanford from '84 to '85 to get my Masters in CS.
My company paid for the whole thing as well as paid me 50% of my salary during that period, but I only had 1 year to get my MS degree - not an easy task at Standford. It was a sweet deal, though. A lot of us went there as part of what used to be called the One Year On Campus program, or OYOC for short.
I didn't go to Standford because of their politics or that of the entire Bay Area. I went there because it was a top name school. I wasn't very politically minded at the time.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Go Cardinal!
You're older than I thought.
You've been out of school for just about as long as I've been alive. Doesn't that make you feel old?
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Did you see any of the concerts they had at the Frost Ampithear
then?
I went to the Grateful Dead shows they had there during that timeframe. They were AWSOME!!!!
Irrelevant, no. Jackass, yes.
The biggest silver lining, if somehow Clinton gets the nomination, is that when she kicks McCain's butt and is President of the United States, it will be Rush that was in large part responsible for it!
But of course, that is probably what he wants. Another Clinton presidency is ratings gold for him, and I have little doubt that his personal fame and fortune is more important to him than his political desires.
And in the end, the main effect that "Operation Chaos" has had is probably just that - ratings gold, in this case for cable news. The prolonged Democratic primary hasn't changed Obama's poll ratings - in fact in some areas they've gotten better
. It has resulted in greater interest in primary elections in the later states - good for the news shows, and good for the Democratic Party, as the number of new registered voters continues to grow. And I am sure that all the attention has also helped to stroke Limbaugh's ego - he's such a humble and self-effacing guy, so maybe this will help him break out of his shell.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
But of course ...
you point is a red herring since affecting Obama's ratings were never part of the goal of Operation Chaos. The goal was simply to keep Hillary alive so that she and Obama would give us ammo on each other for the general election, and that it has down beyond all expectations.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fess up
Both you and Rush have a crush on Hillary.
Clinton seems to be using some of that GoRight logic, words that string together and go on endlessly, moving the goal posts for the sake of making 'the argument' win. You should be flattered, GoRight.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
At this point in time ...
Hillary is nothing but a pawn. A tool to be used to expose as much dirt on Obama as possible. She has served us well.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"us"?
Do you mean the Rush cult? The one's hypnotized by the sounds of Rush's voice to follow the commands of their great leader?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Sure, if that's what you want to fool yourself into believing ..
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Rush for Clinton?
I wouldn't have thought so by chance since they were so enamored of Ayn Rand.
Well, Tom Sawyer was a good song, I suppose. After all, his mind is not for rent to any god or government.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén