Friday/Weekend Open Thread
All hell is breaking loose on Wall Street as global markets are down sharply on global recession concerns. We'll see what happens today.
Also Treasury mulls backing mortgages .
Have a great weekend!
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2008-10-24 08:50
Tags:
Comments :
heartening news for McCain supporters
Early Voting, Now at 11%, Could Reach 30%
You know how everyone on the Left is crowing about many more Obama supporters early voting? Gallup doesn't think so.
Very surprising.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
McCain supporters....?
are there any left....... ;-)
I'm only half stupid
we are still here :)
And not everyone lost hope. I haven't. Unfortunately of course I am voting in NY.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Charles Fried, McCain Advierser
goes for Obama
Here is a list of other prominent conservatives
who are now Obamacons. Ken Addlemen noted that McCain's campaign has been “impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird” in his handling of the U.S. economic crisis. He also was unsettled by McCain’s choice of running mate. “Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency,”
I'm only half stupid
One of them is now in Allegheny County jail (Pittsburgh)
She won't be voting.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
BTW Ender
If you think you're going to pass me for last place in the stock market game you've got another thing coming. I'm ridin' that mining stock to utter ruin!!!!!!
qui tacet consentire
Looks like you guys need a bailout!
Not that most of the rest of us are looking too good at this point either....
Seriously though, what you did was very similar to what a lot of hedge funds did... loaded up on basic material stocks on margin, betting on continued commodity inflation. Turns out that doesn't work so well if commodity prices fall! So there's no wonder there's so much panic selling in those sectors! But of course sandbox will tell you that the market crash is caused by anticipation of an Obama win :-p
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What a great idea
A bailout. I'm just as worthy as AIG and Wachovia, dammit!!
qui tacet consentire
Small sample size
The polls regarding early voters have very small sample sizes, so the margin of error is very large. That is why you can get such conflicting results.
Everyone should just chill out. This'll be done in 11 days.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Girl who claimed to be attacked confesses it was a hoax
http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html
qui tacet consentire
Fox declares McCain's campaign over
Here's what Fox News Executive Vice President John Moody wrote last night:
qui tacet consentire
Lots of rightwing media owes Obama and his campaign an apology
Hannity called Obama supporters "vile and disgusting" for attacking this "innocent girl" because of her political beliefs.
Wanna bet he's not apologizing today?
Fox News ran a story ALL morning (especially during Fox and Friends) that the Obama campaign's "hate rhetoric" has led to physical violence against McCain volunteers. And they kept showing Ms. Todd's face to prove it.
The entire mindset of the radical right wing in this country was exposed during the past 48 hours. And it wasn't just Ms. Todd. It was the REACTION of all the right wing reactionaries to the story.
Their first instinct was to believe it, because that is their preconceived notion of black people.
If this was 100 years ago, they would've strung up every 6'4" black man within 20 miles of Pittsburgh by now for attacking an innocent virginal white woman as a message to the rest of "them".
Moody is correct. Any chance McCain had in PA went out the window. This event will lead to a SEVERE reverse-Bradley-Effect.
I survived the Bush Administration
Aint that the God's honest truth
It was the reaction of the right wing and their noise machines, that was most revealing.
I'm only half stupid
Why should he?
As pico correctly argues these attacks were premature in the sense that there was no supporting evidence at the time.
Like pico, Hannity was correct for villifying these attacks before there was any evidence either way.
And after the facts came out they corrected the story.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In fairness, GoRight, it does work both ways:
Hannity had no business trying to make political hay out of a largely detail-less allegation that the police had not yet issued an official statement of investigation about. I have no problem trouncing him for his poor taste in turning this into something substantial when he had nothing to go on but a Drudge headline.
That being said, it's a symptom of our news cycles now that everyone feels the need to trump everyone else on Big (capital B) and Breaking (capital B) news stories, and to be the first to divine the True Importance of events. It's sloppy punditry, and Hannity gambled on its being true. He lost. So I'm perfectly fine with tearing him a new one. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Make up your mind, pico.
Your position seemed to be clearly that people should not be making partisan attacks based on the allegations before the facts have come out through proper investigative channels.
In this case Hannity was NOT making the case that these allegations were true and therefore representative of the "typical Obama supporter". If I read the above correctly, he was complaining that the Obama campaign was trying to make a partisan attack against this victim (at a time which just happened to be before the facts had come out). In this sense, he was making the very same case you did above.
You and Hannity, pico, two peas in a pod on this issue at least! :)
You are only OK with ripping him a new one because now you too are being partisan.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I could make a campaign commercial against pico on this issue:
[visual effect: grainy, unflattering picture of pico]
Narrator: Pico said he would "support Red Wing on this one
" after Red Wing tried to make political hay out of the Ashley Todd by saying that the incident was about " a thug who loves barry so much he carved a B in someones face!!" 
...
[grainy picture morphs to mirror image of grainy picture]
Narrator (in condemning tones): But now, pico says that he is perfectly fine with trouncing Sean Hannity and tearing him a new one over the exact same thing...
[switch to side by side grainy pictures of pico and mirror image, arranged so that pico is facing the mirror image of himself]
Narrator (sing-song voice): Just where DOES pico stand on the issues?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
LOL, that's pretty good.
pico, you know I'm just yanking your chain above, right? I just saw your original comment as an opportunity to provide some cover for Hannity. I am sure everyone knows that. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Naw, you caught me in a mistake,
but a different one than you targeted. I posted a clarification below.
So much for my political campaign! The attack ads are surfacing before I've had a chance to announce!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Skymutt, why take my comment so far out of context?
I posted the initial article, and took a "non position" on it from that point, even agreeing with you here and there.
I was saying that particular comment subsequently for the contrast in making a corollary point.
I hardly was making political hay.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well,
Well, my experience with you is that you're fairly consistent in seeking to make poltical hay. Therefore, the fact that you began agreeing with me at some point I interpret as your pragmatic assessment that the alleged victim's story was falling apart to such an extent that there was no hay to be made on the story except by admitting what was becoming obvious-- in order to attempt to develop an image of fairness and enhance future possibilities of hay-making ;-)
Besides-- this is a campaign ad, who says that I have to be fair as far as taking things in context? :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Are you or anyone here not guilty of ...
...the same, of course not.We are all expressing our political prefrences to one degree or another, through eloquent prose, or brash statements we all reveal the partisan within.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Ahem, GoRight and skymutt:
I miswrote what I was referring to, but I've been 100% consistent on this:
This is what I was referring to, not Hannity. Mea culpa. If FOX pundits were attempting to attack Obama's campaign for somehow leading to physical violence in a case that they had no business analyzing as such, then yes, they're guilty of the same thing.
I've been 100% consistent on this, I just mistook the pundit I was aiming my barbs at.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Now that I look into this further...
...I can't find anything to substantiate Prime Mover's claims that Hannity called Ashley Todd an "innocent girl" or called those questioning the story "vile and disgusting", and moreover, I can't find any substantiation of the claim that Fox ran a story that referred to "hate rhetoric" coming from the Obama campaign or that this has led to violence against McCain supporters, Ashley Todd or otherwise.
If anyone can find a transcript or video/audio clip that can confirm any of these quote snippets or anything closely related, I would be interested in them.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Cheney's Love Child
aka Bob Johnson
is calling out and calling on the right wing for an apology, specifically Johnathon Martin of Politic.
I'm only half stupid
Heh
Who the heck is Jonathon Martin? These guys like CLC make superstars out of these nobodies.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Perhaps so....
yet the allegation that the story was pushed by a McCain aide, to incite racial division for political gain is troubling when it is laid out as fact without even so much as an allegedly by a reporter who is supposed to be unbiased.
I'm only half stupid
God Speaks to Lieberman!
Apparently Lieberman, who prepped Sarah Palin on foreign policy http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/Thank_god_Palin_wont_have_to_be_Prez_Lieberman_says_.html
,has a direct channel to god and KNOWS that, if Palin becomes VP, she'll have time for "on-the-job training" before having to assume the presidency:
Hey Joe, can you guarantee how long I'll be alive and healthy? C'mon, pleeeease Joe! Or do you just give those guarantees about someone whose death or disability would jeopardize our nation's security and general well-being if we elect him president?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
The chance of McCain dying withing the next two months
are pretty slim.
So what? First of all,
So what? First of all, "on-the-job training" to prepare one to be POTUS, particularly in these times (wars, other major national security threats, economic/financial crisis, etc.) implies a certain amount of time that I presume is more than one day or a week or a month. Second, yeah, fairly low probability that McCain would die or become incapacitated within even a year or two, but it's not an infinitesimal probability, so it's not an insignificant risk to our national security and well-being (a risk that one should dismiss or discount greatly), and given how unqualfied Palin is and the fact that that risk was entirely avoidable, McCain's choosing to introduce that risk is highly irresponsible and certainly not reflective of putting "country first" (unless someone goes down the road of rationalizing that even introducing that risk is worth it if is the best means to the end of McCain winning and assuming that McCain winning is substantially better for the country).
Remember, risk is a matter of magnitude as well as probability. In this case, that means considering how bad (itself a matter of risk, meaning magnitudes of bad outcomes and associated probabilities) it would be if Palin became president, let alone if she did after a year or two, let alone if she did after a month or two, as well as the probability of that happening.
Sincere question,
how much control would Palin have over the response to either an on-going or emergency crisis?
Something to do with the financial meltdown would have to go through Congress, as would a declaration of war. Presumably she'd have capable advisors when it comes to economic or foreign policy issues. I'm not sure it would be an immediate disaster.
Having said all that, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the prospect of Palin as potential President if she displayed more of an interest in and understanding of important issues. Even relatively trivial stuff like this
worries me as an indicator of how she would approach a problem.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
"The wackaloon from Wasilla"
Boy, that PZ Myers doesn't mince words, does he? :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sounds like a boxing intro
"To her enemies, she's the wackaloon from Wasilla; to her supporters, she's one of the original mavericks. Now in the far right corner, representing the red states, Saraaaaaaaaaaaaah Palinnnnnnnn!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
IÂ liked that TV show with the
I liked that TV show with the claymation fights, Celebrity Deathmatch. A bit hit or miss (pardon the pun), but good for an occasional laugh
But what does PETA think of him/her?
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4When was the last time we
When was the last time we went to war with a declaration of war by Congress? I think WWII. Yes, there have been "authorizations", but the way the "war powers" are applied by U.S. presidents in modern times, a declaration of war seems almost archaic/anachonistic, at least in practice (although I'm open to correction if anyone thinks that's overstating the case). So most certainly a President Paline (scary thought) could not only launch military strikes but send forces into war for an extended/indefinite period without a declaration of war, and although I'm not sure of this, I think she wouldn't even necessarily need authorization from Congress. And although Congress could try to cut off funds, Pentagon funding would likely turn out to be fungible and even legislation would specifically prohibit that (something targeted like the Boland Amendment with regard to support of the Nicaraguan contras), it would take some very strong anti-war public opinion in a lot of states and districts to get Congressmen and Senators to cut off funds "while our troops are in battle". And in any case, by the time Congress could take any such action, great damage to our interests could already have been done (by the president either taking military action when we shouldn't have or not taking it when we should have), not to mention possibly costing many lives unnecessarily one way or another. And yes, a president has advisors, but as you know, the buck stops with the president, and either the president is exercising some judgment (and doing so from the holistic viewpoint a president is supposed to have) or is completely outsourcing such critical decisions to staff who we did not elect Commander in Chief, and more broadly, president.
As for financial crises, needless to say, presidential appointees, making decisions either subject to the approval of the president (e.g., Treasury Secretary) or not (e.g., Fed chairman), make some very big, very consequential decisions that are not approved by Congress, not to mention statements that can impact markets and the economy -- something that applies to the president as well (e.g., FDR seeking to boost consumer confidence during the depression).
Also, a "crisis" is not the only opportunity a president has to do some serious damage to the country.
I could go on, but hopefully I've addressed your question to a substantial degree.
I guess it depends on what went to war means
For example forces were deployed prior to the Gulf War but Congress authorized the use of force before strikes began. But your points are taken.
Presumably many of the appointees who would serve under a hypothetical President Palin would be people chosen by McCain. Yes, Palin would certainly have influence, but in a vaccuum I wouldn't be concerned about a newly appointed president overruling advisors to pursue a poorly considered course of action. With Palin's apparent tendency to disregard and devalue experts, however, I do acknowledge that risk exists.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, there's a lot IÂ could
Well, there's a lot I could say further on this question, but I'll just address one point from your comment: Advisors usually have perspectives that are narrower than that of the president, and therefore also objectives/priorities that reflect a less than holistic view of our national interest (as the president is supposed to have) and will therefore often give conflicting advice. In fact, that narrower perspective applies to all advisors with the possible exception of the vice president, whom Palin would have to pick, by the way. I'm reminded of a valid point that Obama made recently regarding whether or not he would necessarily do what Petraeus recommends: Obama pointed out that as president, he (Obama) would have a broader perspective, taking into account not only Iraq or even Iraq and Afghanistan or even national security and foreign policy, but also other elements included in a holistic view of the national interest, including the opportunity cost of forgone domestic spending (or I suppose higher taxes, or higher debt which would eventually mean lower spending and/or higher taxes) if more were spent on war(s).
That's a big reason why the buck stops at the president. He's the general manager, so to speak. Just as the Manufacturing exec wants to keep inventory low and the Sales exec wants inventory high (to avoid delays or lost sales), and a general manager has to choose or guide the right balance between those conflicting objectives.
I'll leave it at that, at least for now.
Archaic in a sense, but still binding
They're archaic in the sense that in the 18th century, even the strongest military in the world took quite awhile to conquer a region. It took us about a month or so to take Iraq. We weren't even supposed to have a standing army most of the time, but that was before a country could kill millions of people with a single missile or a group of people could kill thousands in an act of terrorism (although, I think terrorism is more of a police/intelligence matter).
A lot of things that were true in the 18th century are no longer true in terms of war and military action. Ohio's constitution makes the case that a standing army in times of peace is dangerous to liberty. I don't think you can find anyone who'd agree that the Ohio National Guard or Ohio Military Reserve is a threat to liberty.
And, of course, quite a bit of military action these days is not aimed at state actors, but at what are essentially private militia groups. Ron Paul called 9/11 an act of "air piracy" and introduced a bill to issue letters of marque, allowing the President to go after the Taliban.
All that being said, the Constitution says what it says, and we don't get to ignore the parts that are out of date. We should not have soldiers anywhere but on US soil unless we have an active declaration of war with a particular country. No military action should be taken without such a declaration of war unless an unavoidable conflict presents itself (ie, nukes headed our way or Russian troops in Nome, AK), and in such cases the President should only take steps necessary to defend the country -- that is no offensive strikes until Congress can convene and vote to declare war.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Just to make sure it's clear,
Just to make sure it's clear, I was addressing Brendan's practical question -- what could or is likely to happen -- not what is right or should happen. I haven't commented on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act or of actions that have been taken by presidents invoking it, nor on the constitutionality of this or that military action or status. For the moment at least, I don't want to take the time to check into those matters enough to comment and discuss.
John Cole? What a retard ... no wait ...
that's an insult to retards everywhere. :)
If any single thing has convinced me I need to vote for Palin in November it is this story. Anyone who can make John Cole and this PZ Myers this apoplexic has got my vote for sure. Four years of watching these morons melt down like this would be woorth every minute of having to see McCain in the White House!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sigh
I should know better by now, but your disdain for science never ceases to amaze me.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
cole was talking like a bigot there...
Palin was wrong to criticize the research, but Cole was wrong to start ranting about hillbillies. I suspect that is what gets GoRight's goat.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
LOL, what a farce ...
Speaking of "on-the-job-training", Palin has more executive experience under her belt than Obama and Biden combined. Literally, combined. So just who is it that is getting "on-the-job-training"?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Executive Experience
If you assume that "executive experience" is both necessary and sufficient training to perform well as POTUS, you have a point. Unfortunately for you, history shows us that it is not necessary, and common sense tells us that it is not sufficient.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Once again, not all experience is created equal
No one can make the argument in good faith that 1 day of executive experience is somehow superior to decades in the Senate. That'd be like saying a rookie QB starting a single game has more experience than a journeyman who knows his stuff, but has never actually started. Granted you're not making that argument, but you are making the argument that the mayor of Attica, OH (pop. 1000) is more qualified to be President (all else being equal) than anyone in the Federal legislature, provided they had not previously held executive office. That's frankly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my 24 years. I was the vice-chair of the cable advisory board in Fairborn, OH for a few months. Does that qualify me to be President?
I happen to think its all equal. One day in the Senate is one day in the House is one day as POTUS is one day on the SCOTUS. But that really doesn't matter because I put very little emphasis on experience. I voted for someone who hasn't been as much as a school board member.
I recall that you think executive experience is of utmost importance. I take it you supported Tommy Thompson in the early primaries then? He was governor of Wisconsin for 14 years and Secretary of HHS for another 8. That's far and away more executive experience than any of the candidates in either party. If not, a reasonable person could think you're rationalizing your support for Palin in a way to resolve any cognitive dissonance.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm one of those McCain voters who think
the Palin pick was a mistake. She's a decent enough person, but because of McCain's age, he needed someone who the public could look at and see them taking over if something happened to McCain. He undercut his own "ready to lead from day one" argument, because his VP was perceived as not ready, and his campaign has wasted alot of time on the defensive on this point. I'm amazed at how many Republicans keep arguing that she really is qualified to take over right away. Much of the conservative base that McCain mobilized with the Palin pick would have voted for him anyway.
McCain is somewhat erratic, and his views on domestic policy are confusing (i.e., he if for off-shore oil drilling, but against ANWAR drilling?????). I voted for McCain in the primary, but now I'm sorry I did. I'm not really voting for McCain/Palin so much as voting against Obama and the Democrats--I don't want them in control. It's depressing.
name the enemy, win the war
Palin was a huge mistake
McCain can't admit it. He is now forced to kow tow to the very faction of the party that he once so detested.
It isn't as bad as you think. Obama will be prove to be a pragmatist. It is his forte and why so many former Republicans have come to respect him.
I'm only half stupid
That makes no sense
I know I sound like a broken record, but voting for the opposite major party candidate that you want to lose isn't a very sound idea. It assumes that your vote is meaningful to the extent that it would change an election. It also assumes that somehow you can vote for McCain but yet register your displeasure with him.
How did Democrats register displeasure with Al Gore? They voted for Ralph Nader. Our screwy voting system (along with the Supreme Court and voting irregularities in Florida) gave the election to Bush. This time around its a done deal -- especially if you live in a safe state.
The only vote to register displeasure with McCain yet not help Obama is one for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Rationally speaking ...
(using the liberal definition of rationally, of course) as a former Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democrat party whatever Joe Lieberman says might as well come from God himself ... oh wait ... that would only be while he was on the Democrat's good side.
Never mind.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'll ignore most of the
I'll ignore most of the useless junk in your comment (all of which was useless junk, not at all surprisingly) just to ask you this question:
If a man is Jewish, do you call him a "Jew man"? I assume not, because "Jew" is a noun, not an adjective.
So why do conservative/Republican hyperpartisans like you insist on using "Democrat" as an adjective when it is obviously a noun? It makes you sound either illiterate or so hyperpartisan that you'd knowingly write like an illiterate just to be ugly in a partisan manner or just to avoid using a word with other, positive connotations (when spelled differently, with a lower-case "d") in association with the other side.
So take your pick: ignorant, gratuitously nasty, highly insecure, or some combination. No matter which it is, it is lame, and if you knew better you'd consider it embarrassing.
I think you must be snark-challenged ...
get a clue.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's you ignorance, not mine.
Note the big "D". I am using Democrat as a proper noun. That is my name for their political party. As such my grammar is perfectly valid under the rules of the English language. The fact that you misinterpret my use of Democrat as an adjective is a sign of your ignorance, not mine.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is there anything you could
Is there anything you could say in a comment that is so idiotic that even you would realize it's idiotic? Apparently not. "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective, just like "Jew" is a noun, not an adjective. The fact that some words can be both (e.g., "Republican") doesn't change that fact, nor does your simply saying that you are using a word as a "proper noun" when you are obviously using it as an adjective ("Democrat party" -- "party" being the noun, just as if you had said "Jew man"), nor does saying "that is my name for their political party". How about thinking for a change?
Nope.
The "Democrat party" is a proper noun. It is a name designating a specific party. Look it up
and get a clue. The fact that you are unaware of such a basic concept illustrates quite effectively just who the idiot is here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are not just an idiot.
You are not just an idiot. You are an oblivious idiot. And you are not just an oblivious idiot, you are an oblivious idiot who thinks that he is much closer to the other end of the intelligence spectrum. And you are not just an oblivious idiot who thinks that he is much closer to the other end of the intelligence spectrum, you are all that plus someone who is very vocal in manifesting all of above. And you are not just all that, but someone who combines all that with snark.
Oh, and you are ignorant. And you are not just ignorant, but insistently so. And...well, you get the picture.
If you were just an idiot, I wouldn't say so. People can't help being stupid. Same if you were just ignorant. But since you are also all those other things, I'm tellin' ya'.
Remarkable combination. Unfortunately, not exactly rare in the blogosphere.
Why don't you look into something or at least try to think about it sensibly rather than persisting with such nonsense.
For what it's worth, here's what inarticulate, illiterate, lefty, commie pinko, William F. Buckley said in that communist propoganda rag, National Review:
Interested individuals can also read the following, which I found with just a few minutes of a Google search on "Democrat" and "adjective" (together).
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
http://blogs.csmonitor.com/verbal_energy/2005/01/index.html
http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/1727.html
Meh. Here let me strike out the ad hominem attack ...
so we can see the true meat of your rational argument. Hmm, seems a bit sparse there.
And once again we see that the only meat to your comment is provided by someone other than yourself. Still unable to come up with an argument of your own?
With all due respect to the late William F. Buckley and the authors of these other pieces, the fact of the matter is that, as the author of my own statements, I can definitively state that it is my intention to use "Democrat party" as a proper noun to uniquely identify the party to which I am referring. As such it remains grammatically correct and is NOT being used as an adjective. I stand by my former reference in that respect.
Neither you nor Mr. Buckley are the authortative source on the intended construction of my statements. "Democrat party" is a legitimate proper noun much like "Brooklyn bridge", "Yankee stadium", or the "Green party". I have used the contemporary conventions on capitalization for proper nouns and I have placed these proper nouns into grammatically correct positions within my sentences.
You're whining about it does not change these facts. Any idiot would know that by now, but apparantly it remains beyond your mental grasp as do a great many things.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Annnnnd the genius persists
Annnnnd the genius persists in embarrassing himself.
So if you referred to a Jewish man as a "Jew man", would it not be incorrect because you intend to use it as a proper noun? Yes or no?
Your examples are irrelevant and thus inapplicable.
And I did give you my argument -- Democrat is an noun and, unlike, say "shoe store", is not a correct part of a proper noun in the awkward, grammatically incorrect term "Democrat party".
I then offered you sources who confirm my argument.
Don't forget to answer that question above.
Actually, if I was using "Jew man" as a proper noun ...
it would indeed be incorrect the refer to someone as "a Jew man" as you suggest above because this useage does not denote the use of a proper noun. For a proper noun the correct usage would be to refer to "the Jew man" since the intent of a proper noun is to refer to a specific identifiable instance of a man who is known as "Jew man". [1] [2] If I wish to coin the name "Jew man" and attach it to some specific individual I am certainly free to do so. [3] There is no requirement that the individual actually be Jewish, BTW, since it is only a name.
For example, I might choose to start referring to Jesse Jackson as the "Jew man" (purely for the comedic value and the irony of using such a name for the man who coined the name and propoer noun Heimy town). Note that the individual in question does not need to self-identify with the label. I am perfectly free to coin the name "Jew man" and attach that name to whomever I so desire.
In the case which started this sub thread I coined the name "Democrat party" and I attached it to the political party that otherwise likes to refer to itself as the "Democratic party", a name I find offensive since they are anything but democratic (note the small "d" in this case which denotes the adjectival form of democracy). Their cooperation in the acceptance of the name I am attaching to them is in no way required, and I am under no obligation to respect their preferred name.
Actually, I think what you did is parrot their argument ... which is not even applicable in this case because I an not using the phrase in the way that they describe ... which of course does not make my usage ungrammatical in the slightest.
---------------------------------
[1] This serves as my response to your question.
[2] Now go back an check how I used "Democrat party" in all of my posts.
[3] Note that a name is a proper noun, AND the mere fact that I felt obligated to point this out to you is one of the clues I keep telling you to get.
[4] Just for your own education, "shoe store" is NOT a proper noun. Please read the reference I provided above before embarrass yourself further.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are correct that IÂ was
You are correct that I was wrong in implying (through carelessness, not misunderstanding the term) that "shoe store" is a proper noun. I was trying to make a point regarding the correct usage of nouns in the place of adjectives on some occasions, to distinguish such cases from your use of "Democrat" in "Democrat party".
But your argument is basically that you can create any proper noun you want, even if the words you choose appear to be or contain grammatical errors. (1) So you could call the Democratic Party, which is the actual name, "the Democratically Party" or you could refer to Jewish people as "the Jew people", and, per your argument, neither would not be incorrect, right?
By the way, if it's a proper noun, (2) wouldn't you have to capitalize both words -- "Party" instead of "party"?
Two things
First, we don't call people idiots
here.
Second, you missed GR's previous lackluster explanation of his preference of using the term "Democrat Party". Arguing with him about it is a waste of keystrokes and electrons. As a smart man once said, "Let the baby have his bottle".
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry about the rules
Sorry about the rules violation.
Now who is not bothering to read the referenced material?
As I acknowledged above, the party to which I refer prefers to call themselves the "Democratic Party". Your implication that this is the only legitimate name (i.e. by refering to it as the actual name) would be incorrect. That is merely what they call themselves, which they are free to do, but I prefer to call them the Democrat party, which I am free to do.
I am reluctant to respond directly to "neither would not be incorrect" since this would be essentially a triple negative and thus it is tricky (i.e. could be easily confused and/or manipulated by the reader). If what you meant to say is that I am free (as is anyone else) to coin whatever proper nouns I want and my using them to refer to specific groups of people would be allowable under grammatically correct English, then yes I would agree with that statement.
That is a common convention, but it is not required and not following that convention does not make something grammatically incorrect. [1]
----------------------------------------------------
[1] Please read the reference I provided earlier
. I will copy the key portions below to help you understand the point:
Note the emphasized portion of this text which is the part that most directly addresses your point. I think that if you check you will find that, at least in this thread, I have been consistent in my use of "Democrat party".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Common sense would have told
Common sense would have told you that I most likely meant to say:
And your answer is that it would not be incorrect to refer to Jewish people as "Jew people". That is your answer, right?
Would you say it is at least very awkward and unnecessarily so? That it would appear to most reasonable, literate people to be a grammatical mistake or a deliberate grammatical error or at least an intentionally awkward construction, probably to convey an ugly pejorative, particularly coming from someone who you knew didn't like Jews, even if (arguendo) it is not actually a grammatical mistake?
Re: the capitalization, can you offer another example in the English language of a proper noun with the capitalization parralleling your "Democrat party" with "party" lower-case? It's "Yankee Stadium" not "Yankee stadium", right? Would say the latter is incorrect?
No, common sense would have told me ...
IF you had meant to say "neither would be incorrect", that you would have actually said THAT instead of what you did say. Are you in the habit of saying things that you don't mean?
As long as you are intending to use "Jew people" as a proper noun, then yes this would not be incorrect.
Sure, I would agree with all of that except the "unnecessarily so" part. That depends on the author's intent. If their intent is to "convey an ugly pejorative", then an argument could be made that it is necessary.
It is only "Yankee Stadium" to people who follow this convention. To the rest of us it is "Yankee stadium." Neither is more or less correct than the other since there is no formal requirement either way. Capitalizing both is a convention, not a requirement.
Do I have any examples? No. Do I need to provide any to be correct? No. Is it a well established fact that the issue of proper capitalization is subject to personal preferences and/or house styles for such things? Yes, and I refer you back to the highlighted text of my source provided above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, common sense would have
Heh, thanks for demonstrating why I referred to what common sense would have told you (if you had any, that is). I won't bother explaining to you why something would be common sense. Almost by definition, your lack of common sense will preclude your understanding my explanation. But here's a hint: Common sense tells those of us who have some that there are cases/scenarios/occasions in which we should not assume that it is less likely that an error has been made than not. Now go find someone with common sense plus a willingness to spend time explaining this matter to you.
As for the rest of your comment, and your silly argument as a whole as well as your use of the term "Democrat party", it is at best an effort to defend, use, and perhaps promote an awkward, grating-on-the-ears/eyes torturing of the English language (or as Buckley put it, "contorting the language") for the sake of petty nastiness and/or emotional/political insecurity.
Since you were talking about Grammar
and making grammar mistakes to make a point. Should you capitalize God? It seems to me even if you think God is mythical you would still capitalize it since you're still you're still using it as a proper name - or am I wrong and are fictional names not capitalized ( not that I believe it's fictional, but I know you're perspective.), English is far from my field of expertiese so maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, not capitalizing the name of God has seemed like perhaps a sacrifice of gramatical accuracy for the sake of making a point - sort of like your complaint about calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party.
Very fair point. I don't know
Very fair point. I don't know for sure if "god" should be capitalized even if one thinks god is mythical, but I've always considered it correct to capitalize it (and also thought that such is the general rule, e.g., Zeus), but I deliberately use lower-case even though I consider it an error, mainly to discourage the kind of automatic irrational reverence that is reinforced to some degree, on some level, when some people see "God" capitalized. So yes, I make an error deliberately for effect, and yes, I am guilty of "a sacrifice of gramatical accuracy for the sake of making a point". But unlike GoRight regarding his use of "Democrat party", I won't put forth (let alone persist with) some silly defense of the appropriateness of my practice from a linguistic perspective.
I also refer to Ahmadinejad as Ahmanuttajob. I know it's incorrect, and I assume most people know it, too.
 So then if GoRight would
So then if GoRight would have admitted he was making a grammatical mistake for the sake of spitting in the face of the Democratic Party you would have thought that was okay? Because you're essentially admitting you're doing the same - just replace Democratic Party with religion. I'd assume however, that you would have still been critical of GR's statement, since in your first criticism you didn't even assume his error was out of ignorance. With all due respect criticizing someone for something you did very shortly before seems rather hypocritical. And all of it's rahter pointless - you're not going to change what anybody thinks about God, and GR isn't going to change what anybody thinks about the Democratic party. The Ahmadinejad example is somewhat clever way of obvious ridicule( though I think it could be overused quickly), quite frankly I don't think either your butchering of grammar nor GR's is really very clever, and it's certainly not original.
Good observation and good
Good observation and good argumentation, my friend.
 I admire that you admit you
I admire that you admit you were wrong, it's very rare to see a person do that.
Cool. And IÂ agree that one
Cool.
And I agree that one can certainly choose to use the proper noun for an entity they consider mythical. I'll just opt not to do so in this case, because, as I explained, I think when people see "God" capitalized it reinforces an irrational reverence, even subtely.
I'm ok with Zeus, though :-p He RULES! (and that's a capitalized "He")
Ah, JM has an excellent observation.
And likewise I assume most people recognize the discrepency between my chosen name for the Democrat party and their preferred name.
While we both do this "deliberately for effect", unlike you I have a defensible position regarding the grammatical accuracy of my chosen usage whereas you do not. You cannot claim to be using "god" as a proper noun given that you don't capitalize it, which is the true reason that you can't mount a defense of your usage. In your case it truly IS a grammatical error.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry, GR, I've been up and
Sorry, GR, I've been up and down with you on this, and I'm not interested in going around in another unproductive circle. Your term, "the Democrat party" is incorrect, gratingly awkward, reflective of pettiness and/or insecurity, and overall quite lame.
The difference between you and me is that I'm reasonable enough to realize when I'm guilty of doing essentially the same thing, mature, secure and honest enough to admit it, and decent enough to change my behavior to conform to a single, respectable standard.
But hey, it's a free country, this Unite state american (that's my name for it, and my capitalization, so by definition, it must be neither incorrect nor awkward), so people are free to say silly things.
LOL, such a short memory ...
I have already admitted that I intend to use "Democrat party" as a pejorative.
BR wrote:
I responded:
BR later wrote:
To which I make the following points:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Think of it this way GR, if
Think of it this way GR, if you were to write the "ic" at the end of "democrat" you would manage to kill a little more time, which considering the vast amount of typing you're devoting to this issue killing time seems to be a big positive for you.
Not really devoting a lot of time to this ...
I type quickly and responding to BR doesn't required any real thought since he provides no substance to react to. I simply am not going to let him have the last word. If he stops responding I won't continue until the next time someone complains about my use of the proper noun "Democrat party". :)
I understand that you think the topic is silly and a waste of time. I do too, actually, but if I prefer to write "Democrat party" that's my business. As long as BR wants to make an issue of it, well I'll oblige him. It's really no problem to keep deflecting his baseless points and pointless allegations.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The way I see it ...
The use of "Democrat Party" is textbook trolling.
BR is just feeding the troll.
Moving along...
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Interesting. In what sense is it trolling?
?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're at it again.
You were being a form of a troll when you asked that question.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Someone help me, PLEASE!!!!!
I don't seem to be able to help myself. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ugh. Where do IÂ start? (Of
Ugh. Where do I start? (Of course, a better question is "Why do I start?" and an even better one is "Why do I continue with this guy?", but I'm curious about how you'll react.)
Second, the exchange you quoted was not in reference to your use of "Democrat party" but in reference to the hypothetical reference to Jewish people as "the Jew people".
As for the heart of the matter, let's recap. Writing "the Democrat party"...
- is gratingly awkward from a linguistic perspective, regardless of how one feels about the Democratic Party.
- is grammatically incorrect, probably on two counts, one being the lack of "ic" and the other being the lack of capitalization of "Party".
- shows either ignorance or a willingness to use gratingly awkward language and commit grammatical errors for the sake of a petty insult, which shows pettiness and insecurity (the latter because, assuming one cares about proper grammar and appropriate writing style, one apparently feels compelled to sacrifice both out of insecurity regarding the real or perceived validity of one's ideas).
Some sources below from a quick Google search, in addition to the Buckley quote you're already seen.
From: The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
Laying my cards on the table at this point ...
Correct, and it was specifically designed to be so. It is inteded to be the verbal equivalent of a hang nail that gives you a jolt every time you here it. This should be obvious to eveyone, but it seems to have escaped you.
As I have already more than adequately demonstrated via independently developed references, this is not correct. You may find i to be incorrect based on your own chosen conventions but it is NOT incorrect in any other sense.
It shows a willlingness to "use gratingly awkward language" and nothing more. It is designed to be gratingly awkward because it is intended to be a pejorative and irritating. Apparently in your case it is working since you simply refuse to let the matter drop in spite of the fact that there is no point to your persisting.
It does not show pettiness because I have nothing to be petty about. It shows agressiveness in the sense that it is intended to be a mild thorn in the side, and it is effectively so as you are some amply demonstrating with all of your protestations.
It does not show insecurity in any way. It shows a willingness to oblige a simpleton (that would be anyone who cares to make an issue of my use of the proper noun "Democrat party") in mindless conversation to illustrate their utter lack of ability to convincingly back up their desired positions and assertions regarding grammar in the English language.
The fact that you waste time digging up references to opinions (of others) on such a trivial and nonsensical topic merely validates the usefulness of my technique. You have demonstrated just how much I can distract you simply by lobbing out "Democrat party" on a blog. I only persist in this case because I want to see just how long I can manage to string you along ... even more so now that I have laid my cards here on the table. :)
I trust that others here already recognize what I have been doing. Perhaps this is what stinerman meant by this being classic trolling?
As for all of your references you dug up, who elected them to be the definitive authorities on the English language? They are merely espousing their opinions on the topic. That does not an error on my part make. For example, failing to adhere to a guideline on the capitalization of proper nouns (or even the proper use of proper nouns) is not the same thing as a grammatical error (should be obvious to most readers).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ding!
And yes, it is incredibly juvenile. It ranks up there with people typing out Bu$h or Rethuglican, which reflects very poorly upon them.
It's being annoying simply for the sake of being annoying. Very lame.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I agree ...
but then we come back to my formulation and use of the Golden Rule ... since my opponents are being annoying for the sake of being annoying (which is lame) that must be how they want to me to treat them in return. I am therefore honor bound as an forthright member of society to do my best to meet their request.
If people are really THAT annoyed by the proper noun "Democrat party" I suggest that they need to grow a thicker skin because the term is likely here to stay and I am not even the one that started it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just for grins and giggles ...
here is a Google search for "Democrat party". Note the following:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nucular Bombs...
So is nucular.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Surprisingly, not so much ...
Here's the Google news search for "Nucular Bomb"
. Here's the Google news search for just "Nucular" 
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Dang, forgot to include the link ...
Google news search for "Democrat party"
.
UPDATE:
OMG, looking through Google search above I noticed that the New York Times
no less is [seemingly] all over the map on this point. Aren't they supposed to be the newpaper of record?
I guess I must be in good (?) company then? Actually, I feel like I need a shower now ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As for all of your references
And there we have it, folks. That really says it all. In GR's world, there are no authorities on the proper use of the English language, and thus no place to turn to determine if anything is correct or incorrect, because there is no correct or incorrect, just a whole big mess of individual opinions, each as legitimate as the other regardless of who is saying what, just like the expression, "Opinions are like a--holes: everybody has one." No difference between GR's opinion and that of The Chicago Manual of Style* or those of any other respected sources.
And note that GR is not saying that other experts/authorities disagree with the ones I've cited. He merely asserts that his opinion counts as much as that of any and all sources on the matter, regardless of expertise and reputation.
Thanks, GR. Everyone can see very clearly where you're coming from. Or perhaps I should say "Everywon nac see From your camed", which would be a perfectly correct way to put it -- hey, that's my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, GR, you still seem unable to distinguish between your use of language that is gratingly awkward (not to mention ungrammatical) from a linguistic perspective, which makes you look like an idiot and/or an illiterate, versus use of language that is grating without making you look like you don't speak English well. And by the way, it doesn't irritate me from a partisan perspective. I'm not a Democrat. It irritates me because (1) ignorance, stupidity, and gratingly awkward language irritate me, and (2) it reflects idiotic hyperpertisanship, which irritates me and which I think is bad for America and the world.
It's been somewhat interesting to what how someone like you behaves. Perhaps I should stop here, since you're something of a helpless lab rat, and I'm starting to feel like it's abusive of me to continue pointing out your errors, prompting you to reflexively dispute the corrections and add more errors, etc. On some level you may realize that you are looking silly and stupid and may feel embarrassed, yet unable to stop and cut your losses, which is sad.
* From reviews on Amazon of The Chicago Manual of Style:
I never said any such thing ...
Really, you should learn how to read the English language. Nothing I said indicated that there are "no authorities on the English language." Where did I say that?
The truth is exactly the opposite, actually. My statement alludes to the fact that there are LOTS of authorities on the English language
... I am merely drawing into question the validity of you asserting (implying, actually) that your chosen authorities are the definitive authorities on anything other than their own opinions.
The "authorities" to which you appeal, are Style Guides.[1] That means they espouse guidelines, not requirements.[2] It also means that there ARE no requirements on the topic under discussion under discussion (i.e. capitalization of proper nouns). The fact that so many Style Guides exist illustrates my fundamental point that you are relying upon a convention born out of personal preferences on the part of the author of the Style Guide(s) you favor.
So, the sum total of your "argument" (for lack of a more descriptive word) is that in the opinion of the authors of some guidelines which articulate their personal preferences for how to handle matters clearly outside the grammar of the English language I have committed some faux pas that offends your personal sensibilities. The problem with this particular line of reasoning on your part is that I never claimed to be adhering to the principles espoused by any of the Style Guides you reference, and therefore I could not have erred relative to that standard by any definition of "erred".
In this sense you are creating a strawman and then seeking to demolish it ... which is wise on your part, actually, beacuse a strawman is about the only opponent you have a chance of besting here. The fact remains that my use of a proper noun is legitimate within the rules of grammar for the English language, your personal preferences (and those of your preferred authorities) on the use of capitalization not withstanding.
You're starting to catch on ...
and there you have it. This point is essentially correct.
This is especially true with respect to matters of style and Style Guides. There is no particular reason to consider one authority more or less correct than any other in this case. They are essentially all equal in that regard.
Nor is there anything preventing me from writing my own GoRight Style Guide in which the proper capitalization of the proper noun "Democrat party" is, well, "Democrat party." :) None of this would violate the rules of grammar for the English language (i.e. the requirements on proper word usage and sentence construction).
Respected sources? The question is, respected by whom? Point made.
Not true. As I said, my usage is deliberate. I am taking appropriate artistic license
to help make my point and to sharpen my literary stick. By using language which appears to be ungrammatical I cause my use of this intentional pejorative to stand out and thus increase its effectiveness as a literary device.
Well you better stay away from mirrors (and your own posts) then.
I think there must be a grammar error in there somewhere ... :)
Yes, please do ... but not on my account, please. Do it for yourself.
------------------------------------------------
[1] Yet another example of your lack of personal substance in these posts. You are once again relying on the substantive opinions of others rather the espousing our own. Stop being such a lemming and get a clue! :)
[2] Note that guidelines
are conventions 
and NOT requirements 
. Is English actually your first language?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow, this is a really important point to you isn't it? NT
NT.
Not so much.
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Could've fooled me. NT.
NT.
Why, because I choose to keep stringing him along?
Just to see how long I can do so?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Maybe he was doing the same to you
but hey it's your time to waste. I choose to waste mine talking about other people wasting time. :-)
What I Believe...Fred Says It Best...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
He's still a crappy actor, even there.
The only thing I've really liked of his was his part in Hunt For Red October. Hot wife though.
Come on, he's making some serious sense here!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The Yes on Proposition 8 folks are resorting to extortion.
We here in CA have a Constitutional Ammendment we are voting on that will re-illegalize gays being able to marry whomever they choose. The Yes on 8 people are in the news (www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html
):
"A threatening letter has sparked a new controversy here in San Diego surrounding the gay marriage debate. Donors who gave money to the No on Prop 8 campaign say they received blackmail letters demanding money, and the Yes on 8 campaign now says the letters were sent by their employees.
The letter from Yes on 8 came by certified mail, demanding at least $10,000. Jim Abbot knows exactly why he's being targeted - his business gave $10,000 to a group called Equality California, which supports No on Prop 8.
The letter says if they (the business) doesn't give an equal donation to Yes on 8, the name of his company will be published. It reads in part, "It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage."
The Yes on 8 folks say they've sent out about 50 of these little beauties. Now, while I doubt this is illegal, it certainly is hugely over the line & tacky & for folks who are trying to portray themselves as being more moral, they sure aren't acting the part.
However, looking back on the past week, I have to say I love the implosion that the McCain camp is going through. Between Sarah spending $150 K on clothes, the Campaign pulling out of many more states and more & more influential Republicans announcing their support for Barack for President, it's been a pretty funny week.
I voted absentee today....
...And was simply appalled by the wording Jerry Brown and the liberals had put on the ballot.
It shows the BS way liberals go about politics.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What are the local issues down there? Santa Barbara
isn't it? I'm voting no on most of the bond issues. I'm still ambivalent about the high speed rail one. I was more against it till I read that when you look at the money they are putting into highways & airports, then it was in the same ballpark. I do like high speed rail. It'd be nice to take the train to LA instead of driving or taking a plane. We'll see.
Yes, SB. And you? Bay Area?
We have the same old stuff too. They're widening the road thru SB, which is good if you,ve ever cruised thru town, it was actually a stoplight till a few years back... LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Work in Oakland, live out in the Central Valley.
So I get both the urban & the sticks feeling. Plus when I want to go up into the hills, I'm right there.
We don't have too many local propositions. It took me a whole night to read that book they sent detailing all the propositions though. I still am voting no on most of 'em. You'll be happy to hear I'm voting no on 7, the re-newable energy one. I support renewable energy, it just seems that one wasn't what I wanted. Plus the arguments against it by Sierra Clubbers & what not helped.
You're lucky, Santa Barbara is much more Ventura & less LA. More conservative. You ever go up to Vandenburg & watch the rockets launch?
How do you copy a picture over from your hard drive?
I see how you can link to it but this is just a jpeg on my drive.
Upload it to a free photo hosting site
basically same as here
, although if you have a personal site that you want to use that's fine too.
At some point we might make it possible to upload images to SC directly. Maybe.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Major commute, yikes. At least gas is coming down, is it there?
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I should own stock in the oil companies. My Mutual Fund
probably does. Yea...85 miles each way.
What's wrong with the wording?
The people who proposed the amendment don't like it because it's not couched in language more favorable to them (and to soften the real-world impact the amendment would have), but the wording is 100% accurate. If the Supreme Court of California has determined that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the state's constitution, then the amendment would eliminate that right. As such:
That's an accurate description of what the constitutional amendment would do.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It's obviously worded in favor of the state, not the people.
The people already voted on this, this is a travesty of justice and a scam on the people of California, why should the liberals in LA and SF, Jerry Brown, and a activist court decide an issue like this in spite of the will of the people having been made clear.
As it is now when you ask someone do you support gay marriage, and they don't, they would respond "no".
This wording makes people think counter logical.
Another trick on the people by the left.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The citizens still preferred slaves when Lincoln freed them.
Majority preference in this case doesn't matter. It wasn't till the 50's that two people of different races could marry. The people's majority was for it, it doesn't matter.
You are trying to take away essential liberty. Their freedom to love & marry who they choose, not who you'd prefer they choose. You don't want them to have the same right as you and you use majority as a reason.
It's a basic human right that they be given the same accord you want. So what if the majority are bigots?
It was wrong to own slaves, it was wrong not to allow two people of different races to marry, it was wrong not to allow women the vote & it is wrong not to allow gays the right to marry & divorce, just like you. That's why the Supreme Court over-ruled your precious law.
STOP trying to equate slavery with Homosexuality!
They are not corollary with one another in any way, shape, or form.
One was the dominion of one over another by force, and it was wrong.
The other is simply the desire to practice of a lifestyle that is an anomaly of the human condition, an societal aberration, stemming out of a sexual deviation from the unrefutable, empirical evidence to the contrary.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Prop 8 wording
The wording states clearly the intent of the amendment. Do you disagree that the intent of the amendment is to prevent same-sex marriage? Do you disagree that proposition ballot questions should clearly state their intents?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm totally fine with boycotting,
but demanding money from companies in return for not publishing their names? That's just crass.
I'm not sure it's extortion as far as California law is concerned, but it's unethical and tasteless. I'm glad this move is getting the bad press it deserves.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Krauthammer dials it in...
The rest of the story...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yeah, saw that one.
Yeah, saw that one. Krauthammer makes many valid and important points, IMHO. I encourage everyone to read it, even (or especially) you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers who are drunk on "inspiration" (which I guess is an ingredient in that Kool-Aid -- just struggling lamely to keep the metaphor intact)
I applaud your courage, your willingness to avoid
rationality.
You're funny. After the train wreck of a week McCain has had you still think that twit has the capacity to lead a nation? Hardly.
Good luck with the detox and
Good luck with the detox and withdrawal from the Obama Kool-Aid.
By the way, did you support Obama in the primaries, and if so, at what point did you conclude that that a guy with a couple of years experience as a U.S. senator, no exec experience and relatively few years on the planet was the best person to become POTUS in a time of war and other complex threats to our national security and international interests, in addition to major domestic problems.
Shoulder to shoulder with BR...
...even though I'm actively looking for common ground with Kindness.
Trying to find ways to be more objective and bi-partisan, but not finding that chance here.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm sure there will be times
I'm sure there will be times when I'll agree (or agree more or mostly) with you and times when I'll agree with Kindness. Broken clock theory, ya' know. There will be times when the party line talking points just happen to be right. Actually, in fairness to Kindness, I'm not sufficiently familiar with a large enough quantity of his/her comments to characterize him/her in that way, but his/her last comment seems to indicate over-the-top thinking and speaking that normally comes with knee-jerk hyperpartisan territory.
Sounds like we're all becoming a group, chalk 1 up 4 free speech
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes, I voted for him in the Primary.
I'm still happy with the guy.
He is going to be the next President. Don't go & have a Scanners moment and let your head explode or anything. The bravado speak is a good way to hide your sorrows. Looks good on you.
By the time the vote got to CA
it was a two-way race. The choice between Clinton and Obama is a no-brainer. In fact, the choice between Clinton and a random Democrat is a no-brainer.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's not that great an article, frankly.
Krauthammer argues that the "temperament" issue is some kind of "phony case", but then rebuts it with a silly platitude. Speaking of platitudinous language:
Based on what? It doesn't matter: it's about rhetoric, not analysis. Hello, hyperbole!
The end of the article moves from empty to outright hilarious: Kraut does not understand the situation in Georgia, so he praises McCain's very very wrong stance and denigrates (and misrepresents) Obama's equally hawkish language over Georgia. That's a big "huh?"
Other people have made the case for McCain much more convincingly
. (Even parts of this article 
, although it has its share of platitudes as well)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Obameconomy... (As depression sets in...)
Want more?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Everyone watch this - Or you're in denial...
Now order the film and stop drinking the vile of liquid they're dosing you with
everyday!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm in denial!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Hype
I fully agree that Obama is better at promoting himself and his ideas than is McCain. But it is not logically inconsistent to also believe that Obama and his ideas are in fact better. Just because Coke has better commercials than Pepsi, doesn't make it wrong to prefer Coke.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Liberals are becoming more the minority around the world...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
We are the Scorpions!
YouTube videos with graphs and no direct linked sources, my favorite.
Those graphs keep on comparing UK/FR/GE/IT to the US and use data that is highly skewed due to the creation of labor freedom brought forth by the EU. I wonder how US labor growth would look if trade barriers and labor movement barriers were completely removed between Central American countries. Or do the makers of that video want an open border between all North American countries?
There's also the differences in starting points in comparing the US being in danger of being "more liberal" and the European countries becoming "more conservative", what's next, you'll claim the Chargers have too large of a back-up RB if they get rid of Sproles to pick up Warrick Dunn? And then back up that claim by saying the Giants are going to play Jacobs less in certain situations?
And WTF was with the part around 5:30, go to China for economic freedom? They force companies the have local partners, they force companies to buy from local suppliers, they are the one's that act as if there is no such thing as intellectual property rights...
And then the video goes into complaining that the Democrats don't highlight their failures of their colleagues enough...
8:30 has false starting points... the poor pay relatively less because they make relatively less. Discretionary income in real dollars is the only thing that matters, showing that would be much more effective.
8:50/8:55, it seems to ignore payroll taxes in people's real Federal Tax Burden.
Families in the top 20% of income pay less a percentage on their discretionary income compared to percentage of their Federal Tax Burden than do families in the 20%-40% quintile.
Sure their "Income Tax" is of a higher %, but the graph doesn't consider payroll taxes or that those lucky poor are making most of their money to pay for luxuries such as food.
The point of the graph is tantamount to saying the Corporate Income Tax rate is unfair because companies with a high gross margin are paying too much, because companies with higher sales, but higher COGS, are paying less taxes.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The Sarah Palin news roundup ...
I decided I wanted to read about Sarah Palin for a while so I decided to pull together this list of recent news items about her for your reading pleasure:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Spitballing
I'll say this now and get it out of the way:
If Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee for President in 2012, traditional Buckleyesque conservatism will have suffered a mortal wound and will never again return as a dominant ideology in American politics. To be completely honest, this development would be worse than a 3rd Bush term or 2 McCain terms.
The Republican Party will have become a sort of perverse fusion between (european) Christian Democrats and hard-line nationalists. Talk about it hitting the fan.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
why Palin matters more than Biden
This is exactly why Palin matters so much more than Biden. If McCain wins, she is likely to be a future leader of the Republican party, which would have a profound impact on it. Biden, on the other hand, will be 74 if Obama serves for 8 years, and he's a pretty typical Democrat anyway.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Biden gets some real questions...FINALLY!
...and the Obama camoaign cuts off the TV station.
LOL!!!!!!!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yea, there's that "spine of steel" we keep hearing about ...
The Obama campaign can't even take the heat from one reporter in Florida. She asked them a legitimate (albeit pointy) question and they have a melt down. Biden refuses to answer the question and then lies, OUT RIGHT LIES, about what Obama said. Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth around, something that is widely know and acknowledged, and Biden tried to claim that Obama had no such intention.
Iran now has a template for how to deal with Obama and Biden ... just ask them a hard question in public and they will pick up the toys and refuse to talk to them anymore. Geeze, if SOOO look forward to that. Talk about being embarassed to be an American ... that's gonna be intolerable if these two wimps get in.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Jeaz, it was about 5 pointy questions
And that's being charitable... that lady is obviously in the bag for McCain, and she used her position to launch into a partisan attack in the form of loaded questions. No professionalism whatsover. I don't even think you would have the gall to be such a blatant partisan if you were asking Joe Biden questions while in a job as a TV anchorman, where you're supposed to be neutral!
I woulda gotten a little testy too. Biden was just keeping it real. My personal approval rating of Joe just went up a bit!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Oh come on ...
the "Obama wants to spread the wealth around" mem was out there, the right wing political pundits were making hay with it and whipping it into a frenzy. She didn't make it up out of the blue. She was giving their campaign a forum to clear the air of these accusations and, well, they didn't really clear the air at all. They got all flustered and decided to boycott the station just because they got asked an embarrasing question.
Is this the way you expect people who want to be POTUS to respond to a reporter asking questions? If they can't handle a reporter what are they going to do when the terrorists start hamering them? Wether the questions were fair or not is actually sort of moot. Their reaction was a complete failure to inspire confidence in their ability to deal with even mild conflict ... much less world class conflict.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She may as well have asked him
when Obama decided to quit paying his membership dues to al_Queda.
I'm only half stupid
Let's go to the transcript
Here's the questions (my emphasis):
Loaded question, peppered with over the top negative adjectivery
Another loaded question wih more over the top, obviously biased phraseology, delivered in an accusatory manner. Biden knows this is a political hit job by now.
Haha let's tie Obama to Communism! Another accusatory question, for all intents and purposes calling Obama a Marxist. This is the question Biden calls a joke. That's eacctly what it is.
Yet one last loaded question, a perfect 4 for 4. You've got to hand it to her, those were perfect questions for a right wing partisan hack posing as a reporter to deliver. You couldn't have thought up better ones yourself, GR. But I thought Biden did a good job of expressing contempt for the questions once her right wing agenda became clear.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
McCain continues to close in!
More
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A visual response:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I don't care much about the polls ...
the exit polls in 2004 demonstrated quite clearly the value that they have: none. I suspect there are a lot of people who feel the same. We're just gonna show up on election day, cast our ballots, and let the chips fall where they may.
Now, if we can just find a way to keep ACORN and the Democrats from diluting our votes with fraudulent registrations and votes from dead people we'll be in business.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Love him or hate him
Redefining the Right
This is an excellent analysis by Markos Mulistas, wondering where the Republican party will go.
Should it be Sarah Palin: take the party in a populist anti-government, no social services, taxes are the road to communism direction.
Should it be Mitt Romeny: the CEO wing of the party that has fallen on avarice and greed as a platform for government by the Dow Jones Industrial Average
The division being the theo-conservatives, the religious foot soldiers in the Republican party, or the corporate-cons who represent a small percentage of the party but can't get anywhere without the ever reliable foot soldiers.
The neo-cons have been shown to be fools and are wholly descredited.
Who does Kos pick as the new 'Howard Dean' of the Republican party? Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee, who was kneecapped by the party establishment. Huckabee is the real deal and offers up genuine compassionate conservativism, where family values and real compassion demand a government that works, in other words a party that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
I'm only half stupid
The coalition is fracturing
How religious nuts got in bed with market liberals, I have no clue, but they won't have to suffer one another for too much longer. Theocons enjoy government services for children and the poor and neocons are reconstructed 70s socialists. They both also enjoy smiting/bombing the brown people in the Middle East, albeit for different reasons.
The way it looks to me is that the theocons and neocons will end up being dominant and the market liberals will get squeezed out. This is especially true if the economy gets really bad in the next few years. Here's to hoping the Libertarians become a viable third party!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Libertarians
IF they want to be viable, need to come to grips with the hard cold reality that globalization is here to stay, the UN is necessary, financial laws and trade laws must embrace world wide guidelines, if they want to put forth any kind of vision for the future.
There are as many factions of libertarians as there are Republicans. It is no secret that libertarianism, had it's birth in John Birch society, that had an anti-communist, anti-Jew, anti-black preference.
This BS about taxes is out of control. (My hypberbolic view is that this hysteria over taxes has it's genesis in blatant racism, as in "I don't want the government to spend any of my money to go those n****rs and has since gone through many evolutions of maintaining liberty to be free of giving any sort of support to anyone whatsoever with whom you disagree.)
Taxes are good and we need them to have a good, strong and effective government. Period. The key is having a government that is accountable to maintaining it's proper role in the social contract that is known as America.
(The Palin libertarian wing, arising out of Wisilla, Alaska, does not believe in firetrucks and just barely concedes the need for a police department. That is not what I want my country to look like.)
I'm only half stupid
There's a difference between the control & the face of the
Republican Party. The facade is Reagan, or G W Bush. These were the people who weren't deep thinkers or extremely knowledgable in nuance but were compliant and good images some people could connect with. The faces you mentioned are just faces, no one of them is a power broker in their own right. They just hope to ride a conservative wave to power.
I'd prefer that the powers that make up the republican party were more open as to their intents, desires & aspirations with respect to what they want in governance & expectations. All too often now policy & political direction are more characterized as a poker game where secrecy & misdirection are the rule.
After this election the divisions that make up the Republican Party will go to war with one another. The shakeout in terms of the election results is going to split the fiscal conservative/social progressive republican from the evangelical/Saracuda wing of the party. They don't represent nor serve each others interests so why stay together? They won't.
The Reagan wing of the party
was and has shown itself to be completely about gaining favors for a few in the competitive business world. To the point where we use the US military to fight wars for resources (See Iraq). It was/has been a politically brilliant stunt to weave together a coalition of 'rednecks' to gleefully vote against their own self interests.
I look forward to the Democrats becoming a more pragmatic coalition that favors real opportunity for small business, which if you think about it is the very essence of the American Dream. Less red tape, sensible regulations, and tax breaks that help the start up little guy.
Small business has gotten no breaks under Republican rule if you take time to look at what has been going down.
I'm only half stupid
Chick, you have lost your flipp'in mind!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
An oxymoron if I ever heard one ...
and it's about one of the biggest morons around.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Mitt Romney's never shot a moose
...and if he did, he didn't enjoy it :-) So I think Palin's got the inside track. Huckabee pretty much just puts a friendly face on Bush-style big government conservatism.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Skynet is taking over!
The CNRC issues a statement
:
That seems a little harsh, but hey, who am I to intervene in an internal matter.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, you have to admit ...
this IS an example of Republicans taking crime seriously and being willig to set harsh punishments. This is just the Republicans walking the walk. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Leiberman's political opportunism
Joe Talks Up Respect for Obama
Then:
Lieberman, in other words, has to hope Democrats haven't been paying any attention at all. The party is supposed to forget, for example, when Lieberman argued that Obama doesn't put "country first."
And the time Lieberman said it was a "good question" to ask whether Obama is a "Marxist."
Now: When I go out, I say, 'I have a lot of respect for Sen. Obama. He's bright. He's eloquent.'"
Say it ain't so, Joe Schmuckiest of Liebermans.
I'm only half stupid
Why won't Obama provide his birth records?
Phillip Berg brought a suit to see them, he was denied, now Andy Martin brought suit in Hawaii, he has now been denied;
If everything is on the up and up, why not just put it all to rest and make his birth record public like other candidates? All it does is fuel this rumor that he is not a qualified POTUS candidate.
Obama only saw grandma for an hour..1 hour when he was on vacation in the summer, with it coincidentally coinciding with this court ruling, makes you wonder why he really went to Hawaii Thursday?
Kinda wierd!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Um
You mean the birth certificate he released in June
?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document!?!?
He could have prevented this...or could he?
Check it out!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meh
And the Department of Homeland Security refuses to release McCain's Birth Certificate
. So what?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
McCain is not obstucting their release either.
Obama is!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
More meh
Sorry, RW, McCain's actually going to have to do something positive to win this election. This ain't gonna do it!
Edit: Giant photo of the Birth Certificate
.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
SL - Is "Flowers, Trees & Birds" your blog?
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Nope
Like the name though. What's the URL?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It's the blog of a former poster here
who I haven't seen around in a year or so. FreeDemocrat isn't here these days either.
I guess I could trim the blogroll... there's a few other things that should be changed (e.g., Captain's Quarters is gone, with the author now at Hot Air).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ah
I see it now in the Member Blogs list.
I am only 1/3 of a "working mom in So Cal!"
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Brendan I closed Red Wing Blog too, so it could be removed.
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
In general
Notwithstanding the Constitution, I don't see why foreign-born people shouldn't be President. Gen. Wesley Clark gave the explanation that the President can't be a naturalized citizen because a more powerful country could have one of its citizens become our President, which could make us a satellite state of that country.
First, we'd have to vote for this guy in the first place. Second, if this country really was so powerful that they could buy our election to the effect that we'd elect a foreigner with little allegiance to our country, they probably wouldn't let our Constitution get in the way.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
OMG...Obama tips his ideological hand...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sarah Palin describes Alaska's wealth resdistribution
In her own words
Sharing the profits from big corporations Sarah did her part to make sure that Alaska's citizens took more money out of the profits from productivity. It's called a windfall profits tax.
I'm only half stupid
Alaska has collective ownership of resources
*collective ownership* ( the communist credo?)
Why can't every American have the same opportunities to 'share the profits' from the big oil companies, like Alaskans do?
She has a lot of nerve accusing others of cutting into 'productivity', or raising taxes, while as Gov she pushed to give private citizens a bigger share of oil company profits.
Hypocrite in high heels.
I'm only half stupid
Obama doesn't fit with those guys...
I don't know, he just looks too...boyish.
McCain, on the other hand, has the right style.
Ideologically, McCain is really much more of a nationalist, so Marx and Lenin would have to be replaced with Stalin and Hitler (I don't know about Mao).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.