Weekend Open Thread
So McCain and Obama will do a joint event on 9/11. Good idea?
In the meantime former Hurrican Hanna is dumping a lot of rain on us here in the North East. Have a great weekend!
Submitted by Ender on Sat, 2008-09-06 15:36
Tags:
Comments :
Sarah Palin to hide from reporters for two weeks
Andrew Sullivan finds that shocking, as well as sexist:
Link
qui tacet consentire
Master Branders
The same folks that sold the story that the terrorists came from Iraq are the same master branders telling us that Palin/McCain is the reform ticket!
Sarah "the Baracuda" Palin is tough as nails, but don't ask her questions or she turns into Wilting Matilda.
I'm only half stupid
Sunday talk show lineup
Let's see.....
We have Barack Obama on "This Week" over at ABC
Joe Biden is on "Meet the Press" at NBC
John McCain will be on "Face The Nation" on CBS
Sarah Palin will be on ..... um, hmmm
She must be on some show, right?
Maybe she's on the Disney Channel.
How about MTV? The Food Network? Bravo? HBO?
Maybe she'll show up on ESPN.
BBC? Al Jazeera?
Not even The 700 Club? Geez.
qui tacet consentire
Give her a week Qwakenpus...She'll be there soon enough...
....but you'll wish she hadn't! LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I might just pee my pants in anticipation!
qui tacet consentire
Based on your behavior - Somehow I believe you...n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Then we are indeed making progress
Maybe one day we can drink a beer together.
You can buy.
qui tacet consentire
I'm willing to drop the act if you are...
..and I will try my best to make legitimate, pertinent, quality contributions to progress the dialog if you are?
It's the blatant BS that I can't do anymore, there's too many of you, and only one of me...! LOL! ;-)
PS - You shouldn'd drink with me, you'll be a conservative in the morning! LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I've always been willing
What would you like to discuss in a civil manner with an unreconstructed liberal such as me?
qui tacet consentire
What about that last video I posted...
...in Fridays Open Thread? Not the original, but the second, updated one?
Let me know... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
BTW
I can drink you under the table.
LOL
qui tacet consentire
I'm in Santa Barbara, CA. ...
...Whats the most central bar you know of? ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hmmmmm
How about Tuscaloosa, Alabama?
qui tacet consentire
Where are you, in the middle of the Alantic Ocean? n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm in the real America
Right here in the Heart of Dixie.
I'm not in sissified San Francisco.
I'm right here in McCain Country, dude.
You live in the Peoples Republic of California, but I'm a by-God resident of by-God Alabama. Roll Tide!!!!!
We believe in God here -- and guns -- and guys marrying gals.
Unlike you weirdos in California.
qui tacet consentire
What have you done with Qwibaby...
...Release him immediately or suffer the wrath of all the sissy liberals around America!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
MCCain country?
How do you explain the primary results: Huckabee 41%, McCain 37%
... and that was McCain was starting to win just about everything outside the south.
I've always had the impression that Southern red-bar types took a somewhat dim view of RINO backstabbers...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
n/t
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The south is the Bible Belt - Surprise, surprise?
And those voters are McCain/Palin voters now
!
Are you suggesting...LOL...they might vote for ...HA! Obama?
NOT
!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sullivan isn't a big fan of Palin
It is caribou hunting season, but not for long.
Palin could need a primer before she gives the proper talking points to answer questions.
It wouldn't be as big an issue if McCain wasn't so far from being a spring chicken that was always cancer free.
Palin''s views of "Insha'Allah" are a "terrorist" recruiters dream come true.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Hey Qwagmir...Can YOU imagine...
...someone telling Hillary Clinton she can't be VP cause she has children?
Live by the sword.... LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hey Red Ass
Can you imagine someone telling Joe Lieberman he can't be VP because he's a Jew?
Or Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon?
qui tacet consentire
So Qakn-n-bootz...You're just an idiot as I suspected! n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Nah
I just like to dish it back as I get it.
qui tacet consentire
But you're posting a ....nevermind! n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Was that really all that
Was that really all that necessary
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Red Herrings don't require responses that don't follow
Posting Rules
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Go Cheney yourself
Does that follow the posting rules?
Because I want to make sure I don't offend anyone.
qui tacet consentire
Love the redneck liberals!
I am going to get killed soon. So if you don't see me posting you will know why.
I was out of coffee this morning and went to get my favorite bag of grind at the nearest elitist coffee shop.
Some Dude was there with his goatee, and his Big Ass White Boy shirt ordering coffee.
Out of my mouth as I exited the coffee shop, I heard myself say, "You got the big ass part right, white boy".
Yikes! I couldn't help it, it just came out of my mouth!! Obviously I have an excuse, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet.
I'm only half stupid
What's wrong with goatees?
I've been known to have extremely long ones:
That's the longest I can find in a picture.
My friends who have been to Colorado say that it is quite the oddity. The liberals are extremely liberal and the conservatives are extremely conservative.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Nothing!
Do you own a Big Ass White Boys tee shirt also.
I'm only half stupid
No
Seeing as I'm about 5'8" and around 150lbs, I don't think it would work.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Republicans steal flags from Invesco
Cheap Political Stunts
What a great sign of leadership from a potential President.
How low will Republicans go.
Low enough to win.
McCain just won the election by stealing flags from democrats.
Congrats to the next President of the United States of America. Man of Honor. A True Patriot, and a Thief.
I'm only half stupid
Stupid move...
... They put those flags in "Trash Bags" and placed them in "Garbage Dumpsters!"
I could make a big stink, but you can use your imagination...
There is actually a great article I don't see at the moment, that questioned why there were no American Flags at the DNC after a certain point!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
See, Republicans believe in recycling too!
...and after the RNC, the flags can be tied to your car antenna, where you can keep them long after they've been bleached by the sun and half-shredded by frequent 60+ mph winds.
The problem of proper flag disposal
is bound to occur whenever they are used in mass like this. It's probably best to just have one or a few flags at any event like this...it's kinda silly to have a whole bunch of tiny flags held by every joe schmoe. They are bound to be treated disrespectfully.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
respect the flag: it's a great marketing ploy and trinket
One thing that bugs me about how Americans treat the flag is that many of the people who claim to "respect" the flag have denuded it if all dignity by using it as a marketing ploy (car commercials are a great example) or turning it into a trinket (such as these hand-held flags used at mass rallies, or the flags attached to cars).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Nothing
disgusts me more than a US flag made in China.
Sic semper tyrannis
even more disgusting
Is that these type of gimmicks work. Sadly, the older generation that holds a deep respect for the flag, who fought for what it stood for in WWll, are fooled by this fake show of patriotism.
What the flag stands for today...... made on the cheap in China.
I'm only half stupid
Flags
Maybe they had to take that "great" article down because it was pure BS? Let's see, here's a photo
of Biden & Obama on stage at the very end of Wednesday night. I see at least five flags in the section of the crowd that is visible. Here's a photo 
from the final night at the stadium, with lots of flags visible in the pretty small section of the crowd that is large enough to see details. This one's even better 
.
Just for fun, here's a photo
of the crowd at the Republican convention during Palin's speech. Wha? I don't see any American flags at all!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I win
Did you know whichever party has the largest flag-to-person ratio wins the Presidency?
Its in the Constitution, and you can find it if you look hard enough.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Goolsbee on CSPAN
Transcript here
. Absolute must-read stuff if you care about Obama's economic proposals.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Love the Goolsbee
He rocks!
Tickled pink that Democrats are mad as hell, and making it about the issues on the Sunday talking heads.
McCain's repackaging himself as the agent of change isn't going over as a big hit with the Democrats. They are fighting back.
When McCain speaks about his willingness to work with Kennedy, and Feingold, on immigration reform and campaign finance reform......... aren't these two issues ones that Republicans were just furious with him about? His bipartisan schtick just reminds Republicans of why they hated him in the first place.
I'm only half stupid
Stubborn Truth has a small audience
The Spin on the Mortgage Disaster
:
Uh,...nevermind.
"Austrians" cannot be trusted with power...
Blame the controller, CFO, and CEO first.
Hilarious:
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
OK, Brutus
but other than a statement of ideological preference, you don't really say anything to substantiate why you said anything you said.
Besides, "Austrians" don't want power...so no need to go there.
The "Austrian" comment wasn't a threadjacking attempt
Freddie and Fannie were continuing to act like they had assets on their financial statements, even though it should have been more and more apparent that those "assets" were going to be worthless.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It's another case of socialized capitalism...
That's what Robert Reich said on Sunday at his blog.
he went on to say:
"The Savings and Loan Bailout of the late 1980s should have taught us that when government guarantees the downside of risks and private investors reap the upside gains, there's hell to pay. The risks Fannie and Freddie took on weren't officially guaranteed by the government -- that is, by you and me -- but investors assumed they were. And so did Fannie's and Freddie's executives, who reaped a bonanza with bonuses in the tens of millions each year....Together, they'll become the largest government-owned entities in American history, and, once again, taxpayers will pay the bill, which could come to $25 billion or more....Along with making lots of money for investors and their executives, Fannie and Freddie corrupted our political process. They blocked any attempt to reign in the risks."
Privatize the profits and let the American people pay the debts. How is it that this has become the public ideal of Corporate Wall Street? Thank god we were able to dodge the bullet of having the Republicans put our Social Security money in the stock market, which by the way, John McCain still supports doing. Guess when you have too many hoses to count you just don't care about Americans that know exactly how many houses they own.
Started to make such a great point...
...and just messed it up in the closing paragraph.
This takeover is not a takeover really, the government is investing 100 billion in each company, it could theoretically work out as a profitable thing for tax payers, but. this SUCKS!
The government can't run anything, not even the government, let alone Airports, Railroads, ss, medicare, medicaid, or 12 other entitlement programs, they can't secure the border, and have failed our kids in education, they now have screwed up Fannie and Freddie, and heaven forbid they get a chance to nationalize health care!
Robert Reich is an idiot, always has been, the market has out performed any other long term investment instrument. We are in a correction, but it will always grow, as long as we get back to capitalism's basics, keep the government out, keep taxes low, grow our economy and let freedom ring baby!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Excuse me
Social Security checks are always on time. Always.
I'm only half stupid
Quick question
do you support disbanding the military and using private mercenary companies to fight our wars?
Cause if not it seems that you are acknowledging that the government seems to do at least one thing better than the market could/would.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The defense is one of the 3 primary roles of government.
That is what the government is for, but I don't know how much stock you put in the constitution.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Doesn't matter
If you honestly believe that the government can't do anything right, and that the free market can't do anything wrong, then you should definitively want mercenaries defending the US from agression. The question is "do you?"
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That wasn't the question
I'll concede to the idea that "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. That is obvious.
Putting that aside for the moment, the question is this:
Is the government better than private contractors in fighting wars? Or in other words, yes, the government is charged with providing for defense/war making, but wouldn't we be better served in that function by private contractors since the private sector always does a better job than the government?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm surprised you would ask such a question Stinerman?
As for the government and the DoD, State Dept, Foreign Service, CIA, NSA, etc. there is not a plausible alternative. They are all integral to our government, and our nation security.
Unlike the Dept of Education for instance.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Then to be sure
The government does do a better job in administering DoD, State, CIA, NSA, etc. than any private company could.
I love my socialized military, CIA, NSA, etc.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Alright, now here's the key
Why exactly is there no plausible alternative? Why haven't viable intelligence and military services been offered by the market?
Private Mercenary Companies certainly exist. And yet we don't use them except for VIP escort kinds of duties, i.e. they aren't frontline troops.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm a constitutionalist, so the very idea is nonsensicle to me..
...you'll have to venture forth your own postulation?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's a cop out
Lets say we enact an amendment that allows for either scenario. It allows for either state controlled militaries or private mercenaries.
Which do you want?
I think you are trying hard to avoid the question because you don't like where it goes.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
LOL! I am for free markets and privatizing almost everything!
The Fed - dump it. The Dept of Education, burn it. etc.
I don't know what you want from me, I do not believe it is a credible idea, I therefore have no ideas on how to help you here.
You want to make a case, I'd be more than happy to take it apart if it warrants it.
I can not think of a cogent way the security of the Republic would be benefited by privatization, that's my position - not a cop out.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Alright then
We seem to be getting somewhere. You seem to be admitting that even if privatization of the military were permitted by the constitution that it would not be advantageous.
Alright so that means privatization is not always best. So what exactly is it that makes the military/intelligence different from *everything* else?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I suppose at first glance the obvious thing is...
...national security.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meaning
... I suppose meaning that you can't trust that a commercial entity is going to regard your safety as above their bottom line?
Is that right? That they may with sufficient inducement neglect or even sabotage the nation they are hired to protect so long as in doing so they made more money than by being vigilant?
reminds me of a great Machiavelli quote:
"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”
the Prince, chapter 12
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nanny state for Wall Street
There is a rock solid case to be made that none of this tax payer funded bail out would have happened IF the proper regulations had been in place.
If people really understood the consequences of the steady rise of deregulation of the banks AND Wall Street, and how much it is costing the tax payers in not only higher prices for goods, while "we" have to bail out these crooks they would be livid.
How do you put it on a bumper sticker for voters to comprehend.
Welfare for Wall Street?
I'm only half stupid
Beyond that,
if people properly understood the risk of artificially trying to make markets produce too much of a given result...exactly what we have....they wouldn't dwell on the generic idea of "regulation" (whatever that means) as a cure-all with no regard to the market perversions that created that they feel "should have been regulated".
Nanny action begets Nanny action and so on.
You choose your battles far too discriminately...why not start at the source and make sure things are correct there before judging what it has wrought with no context?
Because it's unrealistic
That's like saying let's take back the dead from the Iraq War, by starting with the source. It's too late.
While I think it would be super fantastic if there was a complete redo our foreign policy priorities the chances of that happening are very tiny.
The same goes for the banking crises. We can't just wipe the slate clean and make a new beginning. We have to deal with this massive mess that in reality means tax payers are also bailing out China and Japan, the holders of our debt.
It's sickening to me. And again it could have been easily prevented with sensible and obvious regulation of the banks.
I'm only half stupid
No. It's not unrealistic
to assess a problem correctly and call a spade a spade.
And when you see the problem for what it is and not for reason to bemoan a lack of generic regulation, you blame things that weren't the problem.
But of course:
And we need to acknowledge what caused this problem. And it wasn't generic regulation. But now we have a huge painful mess on our hands because of this inane risk we CREATED through government fiat. More government fiat is now chasing it.
And then you finish with a simple repeat of your previous. What exactly were you looking to regulate in the wake of this dangerous socialized risk structure we have in place? What? Really...what? Tell me. What?
BTW, telling me it's too late to basically properly allocate in a dispersed manner through market forces isn't any different than saying regulation could have prevented it. It's too late isn't?
So what's your point?
My point is
Of course regulation would have prevented this mess!
Common sense ethical accounting practices don't allow for black holes that no one is allowed to look at.
To suggest otherwise is utterly and completely ridiculous.
I'm only half stupid
Collusion of unethical behavior might not be visible
Regulation cannot stop collusion, external and internal auditors aren't clairvoyant. Its easier to find a problem if one knows there is a problem.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
RICO
If you are saying regulators are not 100% effective that's certainly true. But if you are saying regulators are 0% effective at stopping collusion I have to disagree.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
But he's not...
I assume regulatros would rely on external auditors
External auditors are way down the list of people that discover fraud most often. Definitely not 0% effective, but they're not the horse to bet on.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
IOW, 'Tis better to be simply free to lock your door
than to be encouraged to leave it open and rely on police to guard it for you.
Based on what?
I have to ask by what measure you are claiming that external audits are infrequent detectors of fraud. Based purely on anecdotal situations it seems to me that all the cases of fraud i can think of were either discovered or investigated by external regulators.
Yes a whistleblower may step forward, but with no regulator for them to step to that accomplishes nothing...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Based on people that know the industry.
People in the industry tell me so. And I said auditors were down the list of people that find fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean infrequent in and of itself.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Illegal weapons
are still illegal. At least you can say that 'so and so' is breaking the law and hold then accountable.
That doesn't mean that people don't commit crimes.
Ponzi banking schemes should be illegal.
I suppose we could just erase all the laws on the books, which seems to be what some are advocating for, because of course profits is a motive that is beyond impunity, because it's self punishing. If you are poor you lose. If you are rich the taxpayers will bail you out!
Here we have a whole gaggle of folks stretching the rules of common sense with creative investing practices, because laws were overturned, standard practices were overruled.
Naked shorting should be illegal.
Counting 1% of the principle paid on a loan as a 100% capital for investment should also be illegal. Most especially if the folks that offer this stuff out as 'paid in full' can't even find where the pretend cash landed in the global markets.
This whole scheme was complete insanity. And now the taxpayers get to bail out the crooks, because the crooks loaned the pretend money to too many foreign investors who are putting pressure on the great US of A, now economically vulnerable.
But we should have fair accounting practices?????
The horse to bet on is IF humans are allowed to play games with your money they will, especially if there are now laws that say they can't.
I'm only half stupid
So...
Are you going to respond to the post or what?
It was regulation that got us in this to begin with...
...Politicians forcing them to open the markets to unqualified lendees in an attempt at furthering multiculturalism, why is so much money going to La Raza for God's sake, ask barney Frank!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Seems more like
it was shortsighted and distinctly under-regulated greedy bastards rolling up bad debt into supposedly good investments that caused most of the problem.
Weird that.
I suppose Enron was also a problem caused by excessive regulation?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.