Weekend Open Thread
Comment volume has picked up with our new member magilson. Thanks for the jump-start my free market friend! I'll look at restarting the daily open threads based on our traffic.
I'm off to work -- what is on tap today?
Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 2009-01-30 11:18
Tags:
Comments :
On Republican no votes for the Stimulus
I think the Republicans who voted "no" on the Stimulus bill should really show the courage of their convictions.
I think that when the Stimulus passes, that every congressman that voted no should reject all funds from the package that would come to their districts.
Don't be hypocrits. I think they should accept none of the money in their districts as a sign of how serious they are in their opposition to the bill.
What better way to prove that their stand is all about principle and not about politics?
I won't hold my breath.
I can't take credit for the idea though..... Watch this, a very funny 5 minutes from Stephen Colbert:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/217132/january-29-2009/the-word---the-audacity-of-nope
I survived the Bush Administration
I almost commented on your
I almost commented on your rip off of his show last night. Glad you gave the link. I only caught it in passing as my wife was flipping through channels. Some might call that providence.
But in all seriousness it did give me pause. If I were an elected official, libertarian, of course, could I reject the premise that government spending is the cure to our problem even knowing that it was going to pass anyway? I think that questions what the easiest for me to answer. But the next question I asked myself was wether or not rejecting any stimulus money, while obviously the right choice when answering yes to the first question, would work. i.e. can my "district" survive on principal alone? I know for Tlaloc and ML that the answer is unequivocally no. And I think my answer would be no as well. But not for the same reason. They reason obvious to social democrats is that the stimulus is the only way out of the mess and that depriving your constituants of money is tantamount to torture. But my answer is a bit different. And I'm not sure that I think it will require me to reconsider my economic philosophy. Can a "bubble" or not-so-free market survive when the rest of the not-free-market-at-all is given favors that in turn are not paid for solely by those who received it? I don't think so. This has broader implications, I'll admit. And so:
More thoughts would be appreciated, though (pretty please). Good ones, not ones I already expect, might I add...
I think the point is this
The Republicans who voted no on the stimulus didn't do so because they have some newfound sense of fiscal discipline. They did it so they could give the appearance that they are fiscally disciplined. Their actions when they were in power show they aren't really serious about it.
During the GOP hold of all branches of Government - from 2001 to 2006 - the federal debt wnt from $5 trillion to $9 trillion. And this was during a period of economic expansion.
They've already shown that debt and deficits don't mean squat to them. They are being hypocrits now.
From their perspective, there is no downside to voting no - even if they agree with the stimulus - because it will pass anyway and their constituents will reap the benefits if it works, and they personally will politically reap the benefits if it doesn't. Classic win-win.
They're the same as the football fan who constantly bashes the QB, but when he wins the Super Bowl, they're the first in line at the victory parade.
If they REALLY believed in fiscal discipline, then:
A. The debt wouldn't have doubled during their tenure in power in the first place. The debt reduction that was occuring during Clinton's final four years would have continued.
B. They would return to the treasury any moneys from the stimulus package that were coming in to their districts.
The GOP right now is flailing about, trying to find a way to be relevant. They've become a regional party (according to one of their own, Mitch McConnell) and have no sense of direction right now.
Their only hope of regaining power any time soon is to sit back and root for Obama to fail. Their self-appointed leader, Rush Limbaugh, has publicly admitted as much.
Ironically, this is the same position that the Democrats in congress found themselves with respect to the Iraq war. For them to succeed, Bush had to fail. Bush accomodated them... at least through the 2006 elections... with a spectacular failure to grasp what was needed in Iraq until 2007. That the surge had some success after that was too late for the GOP.... especially since the economy took a nosedive at about the same time.
We are now in a position in this country that is simply this:
If Obama succeeds, the country is better off, but the GOP becomes even more marginalized
If Obama fails, the GOP is better off, but the country is even more dire straights.
It has left the likes of Limbaugh in a position where they are putting their party above their country.
.....the exact same position that the GOP claimed the Dems were in during the height of the Iraq war.
Sweet irony.
I survived the Bush Administration
Stimulus is tasty
Why can't they have their cake and eat it too?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Completely wrong.
They aren't being hypocrits. They are voting their conscience. If they loose the vote and the federal dollar spigot is turned on there is no need to exclude their districts. The vote was on a specific set of allocations which may have included spending in their districts. If all those other legislators felt that the districts of those who voted no actually DID need those funds, well, then they should get them. After all, the majority voted to send them, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They can't feel too bad about government taxing and spending
I think you're mostly right. Just nitpicking...
It depends on why one opposed the bill.
If one opposed it because they see most taxes as tantamount to stealing, then they should refuse the money. It would be close to blood money to them, considering one has to pay taxes or go to jail, ie Wesley Snipes.
If one opposed it because they didn't think it was the best plan, but don't outright oppose effectively all government taxing and spending, then it could be acceptable for them to oppose the something they weren't going to stop. And then turn around and begrudgingly accept the money.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Not the whole context there, GR
I said they were being hypocrits, not just for their current vote and accepting the funds, but because they didn't give a whit about fiscal discipline when they were in charge from 2001 to 2007.
Their behavior from 2001 to 2007 shows that they are NOT voting their conscience. Unless their conscience changes based on whether they are the majority party or the minority party.
To be the fiscal stewards that they claim to be, the only proper action for the Republicans to take is to return the funds allocated for their districts to the U.S. treasury. Since deficits (all of a sudden) matter again, above all else.
I survived the Bush Administration
Meh.
No it doesn't. It just means that conditions have changed since then. The economy isn't what it used to be. :-P
In fact, thanks to our new der Führer, it has now reached record levels of unemployment and lost productivity.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are acting like this is run of the mill spending...
..like you want us to just say , ya PM, you're right it's the liberals turn to spend some money...?
A TRILLION F"ING BUCKS DUDE!
Get over yourself.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hmmmmm
I seem to recall many Democrats expressing concerns over the debt and the annual deficits during the last several years. Does their voting for (or support of) this package now make them hypocrites as well? By your definition, it should. I mean, after all, if they really believed in fiscal discipline . . . .
So politicians are hypocritical and opportunistic. What a revelation ;-)
To be fair
do you consider these times normal times? I certainly don't.
During the last several years a half a billion seemed like a lot of money, until last fall when the stock market dropped 700 points and trillions and trillions of dollars of wealth evaporated, at great expense to our financial system.
If your house burns down and the insurance bails on you...... well again, these are certainly not normal times.
I'm only half stupid
Keynesian logic: surplus during boom, debt during bust
Going by Keynesian logic (which I half-support, and many Dems fully support), the governmnent -- and everyone, really -- should run a surplus during good years and a deficit during bad years.
Overall, the budget should be balanced -- any debt should be paid off before the next recession.
The recession started about a year ago -- so until that point we should have been running a surplus, and for the past year (and the next few years) we should be running a deficit.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That's "starve the beast" in action
If the "wrong" people are in charge during the good times, they can just decide to run deficits then so that when they are required (by Keynesian theory) there is no surplus to "borrow from".
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
the government has a good credit rating
Right now, it seems that the government is the only entity that is trusted to pay back its loans. I think that's actually part of the Keynesian logic.
FWIW, I hate "starve the beast"
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Cause this stimulus is 85% slop...
..face the facts, quit making excuses for the lefts despicable behavior in this matter.
Are we in a crisis or not. If not ok, if so, better get serious about fixing it, and less anxious to be opportunists and screw the American taxpayer under the guise of stimulus!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
How will Democrats look their kids in their eys...
..when the whole deal goes upside down for real.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Dude...dubya added a Trillion dollars to the National debt.
You've got no standing in this debate. Apparently with you it's OKIYAAR.
While that may be typical of some folks views, that won't get the wheels moving again. Myself, I think they should start nationalizing the banks that go bad just like they did in the 80's. with the Resolution Trust & how Sweden did it in the 90's. Ever read The Big Picture? Barry Ritholtz says:
www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/nationalize-now/
"Note that the money already dumped into the black holes of these two financial institutions far exceeds their net worth. And in exchange for this foolish investment, taxpayers have received just 6% of Bank of America, and 7.8% of Citigroup. This is absurd. How a 120% of a company’s market cap yields a single digit ownership stake is beyond my comprehension.
The solution to the banks problems, as well as this ridiculous investment posture, is relatively simple: Nationalize the banks, appoint new management, give them 6 months to spin out 10% of each of the separate viable pieces, with the taxpayer retaining the rest as passive investors. For Bank of America, they can spin out 5 major pieces: BoA, Merrill, Countrywide, a Toxic holdings company, and a Good holdings company. The derivative exposure gets wiped out, put into the toxic holding section.
Stock holders get nothing; Since bond holders would receive some pro-rata share in a liquidation, they get a convertible preferred in the new debt free firm, as well as an opportunity to lend to the new banks at an generous convertible rate."
I think he's right.
Am I GW?....Or maybe we should take you...
...out of the equation because Carter F'd up the economy? What a dumb a$$ thing to say, but nothing new there.
As for the Ritholtz, and your mimicking of his blog? Good for you. Read Barrone's latest and get back to me.
BTW, I've always opposed spending, big government, ...and wannabe jerk-off's like you.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Lets tone down the language
Dollar signs don't hide intent.
And the name calling is juvenile.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It just keeps the real words from being botted...
...I know but...errrr... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Fair enough
I'll give you that.
And I don't mean to be harping on anyone in particular here, but let's try to attack ideas, not people.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I agree...
...n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Methinks this is politics
Plain and simple.
Republicans know that Obama talked about bipartisanship and they want to make him give them a stronger bargaining position. They can do that by saying that any bill reported out of committee isn't any good. Therefore it is Obama's fault that the bill isn't any good.
This line of thinking is wrong in that Obama isn't the Speaker of the House. The President does not have the ability to introduce bills into the House or Senate.
The Republicans are simply playing hardball here -- as they always do. This is one thing I do commend the Republicans on. They are more than willing to talk a good game and then stab their political opponents in the back. Really, that's the way to get things done.
Bipartisanship is very, very overrated.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
My first thought
is that is a rational and realistic assessment, which I very much commend you on.
Recognizing that we are not dealing with a free market and that there is no purely free market solution at this time, does not mean that you have to let go of your ideal that a free market would be better system.
Sort of like our 'democracy' isn't a pure democracy because not every single person votes, but that doesn't mean that the ideal isn't worth striving for.
I'm only half stupid
Recognizing that we are not
I just had to quote that for future use. ;)
But in all seriousness that single thought I had last night has really cornered the market on my brain.
How appropriate. PM is stealing ideas from a comedian!
I always wondered why your comments and positions were always so laughable! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meanwhile... you guys are stealing ideas from someone who
THINKS he's a comedian (Limbaugh).
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Actually.
I'm not stealing ideas from anyone. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You mean that HE'S stealing them from YOU?
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Nope. Just that the consistent application of common sense ...
yields the same results no matter who applies it. You have already admitted that you're stealing ideas, I haven't. :-P
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4PM luv's Rush Limbaugh!
He just keeps going on and on about Rush.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Given the rapid decline of the economy ...
since it became known that Obama was going to be the POTUS. And given that it has now declined even further than it ever was under Bush, can we now say that the economy under Obama was worse than it ever was under Bush? This will continue to be true even if conditions improve, right? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Kind of like blaming FDR for economic conditions in April '33
But you go with that.
;-)
Hint: The shanty-towns that pop up over the next couple years will be called "Bush-villes", not "Obama-villes".
Historians will, rightly, trace the tipping point for the coming Depression to the date of September 15th, 2008.
The day Bush's Treasury, led by Hank Paulson, allowed Lehman Brothers to go under.
The credit crisis that followed was a direct result of other big banks (and markets!) being spooked.
Before 9/15/2008, we were in a recession that was headed for a softer landing. The housing bubble was going to deflate.... but Lehman's collapse turned that gradual deflation into a "pop".
Your grandchildren will read about 9/15/2008 in the history books the same way we read about 10/29/1929.
9/15/2008 is why every conversation about Bush by historians in the future will include comparisons to Hoover.
I survived the Bush Administration
And what about Congress?
Oh, right, they have no control or oversight responsibilities either. No committees charged with anything financial. No responsibility at all; they were just docile sheep following their shepherd.
Yes Bush was amazingly incompetent. But this is again just partisan hyperbole.
+5!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Be fair PF
look at wht he was responding to.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thank you for the timely illustration ...
of the hypocrisy that my satiracle comment was meant to mock. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This just in: RNC picks Steele
Yep. Michael Steele it is.
Oh great!
MS is a good guy!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Steele
The RS crowd seems pleased. I'm not sure entirely why. Looking at his political leanings he seems pretty moderate to my eye.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
He's a rock solid Republican.
Articulate, commited, it was a great choice.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Shouldn't all the candidates
for RNC chair have met that criteria?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
In response to your assertion...
I simply replied he was a good man and a great choice..
It seems the Dem's are tweeked, so that must be good;
As a Republican, I am very pleased.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Steele has my respect
Any conservative who goes on Maher's show has earned my respect.
I didn't agree with a good deal of what he said, but he was well spoken and laid out his ideas well. He did a good job of explaining why he was a Republican and what that meant to him.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
He's the right man for the time.
The one guy who belonged to the all white country club & the one who was marred early in life by school desegregation were to easy to slam the party over.
Here's the thing...You can go with your strict core in which case you'll get about 25% of the people. You can open it up a little & get 35% or you can go full on RINO and get majorities. Which do you choose?
I myself grew up in a clan of NY & New England republicans. They all though the hard core's were the crazy ones. Maybe that's why it's so easy for me to be liberal.
Don't get to carried away with yourself.
...I've been around long enough to tell you, the times will change, and your policies will only accelerate that effect, and in the end Republicans, if they get back to they platform, have the best ideas for Americans, Democrats wil keep liberalizing themselves right passed it! LOL!
Oh..and your Q is easy....no RINO's!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Please
Yeah, because the Republicans couldn't actually appeal a black man, so Steele is somehow not "really" black. You sound like the people who said Obama was an Uncle Tom.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You don't think belonging to a racist club or being
angry at blacks because your high school was desegregated wouldn't hurt the Republican party if one of those two had become the leader? Who'se lyin' here & it damn well isn't me.
Show me where I said anything bad about Steele. You are projecting your own stuff, not what I'm saying.
My apologies
I misread your original comment. Again, too many pronouns to parse properly.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I call BS there...
What nonsense, you were responding to a post about Steele, then went on to say he was the kind of guy that belonged at an all white CC...and whatever other incinerary crap you said.
Funny how so many of these supposed post race Obama supporters luv wallowing in racism!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No. I didn't say Steele belonged to an all white country club.
That would be kind of...impossible, considering the realities at hand.
Duh!
Well considering the source....
Then what did you mean:
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Those weren't about Steele
Dawson was the guy who belonged to an all whites country club and had school desegregation in his past. He was saying Steele was a good choice because Dawson would have gotten you guys crucified.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I see...Then his play on prose was delusive...
Thanks for the insight.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'll have to start subscribing to the SwordsCrossed translation
services to write more readable posts.
Or just take a basic writing composition class...
...why not just say, "I could have said it differently"?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Bit of a misquote
You inserted a colon where there was a period, making your misinterpretation understandable. Read it again with the proper punctuation and it becomes obvious that the two sentences are about different men. (Also, "right man for the time" not "right man for the job" but that is an irrelevant misquote.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Nancy Pelosi is a big fat liar!
LOL! ...well she is.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Is this the lie?
People vote for what they believe in. Clearly, the Republicans did not believe in the agenda that I just described for you, and that’s probably one of the reasons they voted that way. I think they probably voted their conscience and they couldn’t support that.
:)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
To you, I would think it is...
...to normal people who are in the least bit willing to follow the story, it is more like ths...
When Mrs. Pelosi was asked whether the vote — 244 to 188 without a single Republican’s approval — represented a failure on her part to advance President Obama’s desire for a broad bipartisan bill, she practically snapped:
She's a liar.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Don't get me started on Diane Feinstein...
I'm sure you sleep better at night knowing she's head of the Senate Select Intel Committee.
Straight with complications
Oh, Ted, you wacky closeted bastard you...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/earlyshow/leisure/celebspot/ma...
I think I can take a stab at that one, Ted. It means you're, wait for it...
GAY.
Got it?
By the way I'm not job seeking, I'm employed with complications. I'm also 25 with complications. Oh and I'm rich with complications. Not to mention gorgeous with complications.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thanks for the laugh....
I look just like Angelina Pitt, with complications.
Methinks Ted needs to find a different counselor.
I'm only half stupid
Ted doesn't know how to stop lying
The guy should have little trouble acting straight, the guy is a long time fraud.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
depends on what the meaning of "gay" is
Many people equate "gay" with "have sexual relationships with members of the same sex", but it is also used with a more narrow meaning, to mean a group/cultural identity ("a member of the gay community") or a particular view of one's own sexuality.
It seems sloppy to use the term to just refer to anyone who has homosexual attractions, or even anyone who has acted on homosexual attractions. I think it is sufficient to simply say that they are people with particular desires, or people who have done particular acts.
But your post was still funny
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Pffssst...hehe.....Oh sorry.
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I think when a guy has paid a male prostitute for three years
then the answer is pretty self evident. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You say that as a joke but in some cultures it's true.
My middle east freinds say as long as you're the pitcher & not the catcher, you're not considered gay over there. I asked them if they think that's realistic but that's what they all think. I think they're copping out but....
does it influence who you share your life with?
That definition sure seems like splitting hairs, but I think that there is a much bigger distinction to be made between those men who live with their wives but sneak out for some illicit sex with another man and those men who move in with their boyfriends.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
male prostitute, female prostitue...whatever
To expand this example a little bit:
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That isn't my definition. I don't think being gay is immoral.
I support gays being able to marry their partners.
But I did find it a strange way of thinking when they explained it to me. I've since read about it elsewhere in the world too. I mean, here in CA I know guys who have sex with other guys and still say they aren't gay or bi. I don't know. Maybe it allows them to be who they are but I think they are lieing to themselves. Case in point = Ted Haggard, Senators Mitch McConnell & Steve Craig.
I can't explain why some folks prefer to live in denial but we see it all around us in many arenas. Just look at most the conversations here. Folks frequently think their opponents are living in denial.
Of course, it's only us liberals who are absolutely correct to feel that way...(cough, cough)
It's a sliding scale
The Kinsey scale
, that is.
His methods were less than scientific, but I think he got the scale right. There aren't 3 options here (homo, bi, herero), but a scale from 0 to 6.
Your friends who aren't gay but have sex with other men are probably 1s or 2s. I'd venture a guess that a lot of us, when push comes to shove, operate around a 1.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
See, I thought it was topical & funny. I wasn't as serious
as the Kinsey scale or anything. Still it is funny that someone would come up with a scale to try and quantify a thing like that. What do they call the units?
Oh geeze...
....only on SC...
"Oh, how many liberals does it take to unnecessarily & overly PC and partisan the gay issue to death?
A: (2) ...and Ted's GAY already!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
only the title was a joke
It's just so hard not to evoke Clinton...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Or like the Tshirt says
It's not gay if you beat them up afterwards
.
It's a shame that T-Shirt Hell is going out of business.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Nooo, even though I've never actually bought one of their shirts
What about all the good things T-shirt Hell did?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Tend to see that in latino cultures
particularly. This isn't hugely surprising in some respects. Consider the spanish language- most nouns are intrinsically either male or female reflecting either a real world gender difference (professor for male professors vs. professora for femal professors) or a world view that a given thing is male or female (Nombre, "name", is masculine in spanish). Given that the language reinforces a strong world view of a paired duality it's not terribly surprising that in a homosexual relationship the pitcher is considered still male (and by extension still stright, still the one who penetrates another) while the catcher is considered female (also striaght in a sense, just a reversal of apparent gender).
Just one of those interesting examples of how language helps to shape thinking.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
25 eh?
I'll join you in March!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm actually early 30s
moving rather quickly toward mid 30s
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thialand is an oppressive, backwards monarchy
Slashdot reports: More Websites Offending Thai Monarchy Blocked
This arises from Thailand's obesession with protecting the reputation of its monarchy--whatever the cost
.
I thought you all should know how much these morons value their reputation.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Our royal families manipulate
Our royal families manipulate
the free movement 
of information 
as well...
Claire McCaskill makes my
Claire McCaskill makes my head hurt.
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1010370.html
I'm missing the point here
If you're sucking on the government teat, then I don't see why there can be preconditions to getting the chance to do that sucking.
As Mr. Frank once said:
If they don't like it, they can give the money back.
Of course, I'd only apply this to new money disbursed because of a ban on ex post facto laws. Mr. Frank must have skipped over that part of the Constitution when he was reading it.
Now if you want to argue that McCaskill's plan is simply a bad idea, I'm willing to listen.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
She is the "idiot" (one of
She is the "idiot" (one of many) who gave them the money with such expediency that she didn't bother to give a rats behind about oversight to begin with. That is EXACTLY the same problem the CEO's suffer from. I'm important so I get a do-over syndrome.
And you people think they're going to come up with good regulation? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
I never said anything of the sort
Depending on who "they" refers to, I never made such a comment. And to whom does "you people" refer? If you're talking about liberals or Democrats I am neither. Too many pronouns to parse here.
I think there is good regulation, bad regulation, and no regulation. Do I trust Congress to get it right? More not than often, but it happens occasionally. Moreso with the Democrats in charge than with the Republicans in charge.
From your posts I get the sense that you think there is only bad regulation and no regulation. I respectfully submit that such a philosophy is rather simple minded. There is no harm in starting from the assumption that a proposed regulation is bad, but each must be reviewed to ensure this is true. Anything else is intellectual laziness.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The final comment was aimed
The final comment was aimed towards our members of Congress. I'm sure they read this site all the time. ;)
You have it backwards.....
After begging for a cash injection from tax payers because their business model was so crappy that they blew up the liquidity in their secret vaults and can't pay their bills, so the taxpayers have to bail them out, they should be rewarded with more pay becasue.......?
Surely you are not suggesting that privatizing the profits and socializing the risks is to be rewarded with merit pay from tax payers?
It's fascinating that you are so willing to forgive the guys in suits by giving them more of your tax payer dollars as if highly sophisticated theft merits a bonus while teachers and auto workers should be asked to do more for less pay.
I think you are confusing crime with capitalism.
I'm only half stupid
against equivocation and half-measures
I agree that McCaskil is behaving foolishly. This isn't because I want bankers to earn more money (in fact, I want that industry to stop wasting the talent of smart people).
I think she's being foolish because no plan can work when it is full of reversals, equivocation, and half-measures.
If Congress wanted the banks to continue business as usual, they should have given them the money and walked away.
If Congress wanted to restructure the banking industry and micromanage their decisions, then they should have nationalized the banks and done exactly that.
Instead, Congress is hoping for the best of both world -- allowing the banks to operate as independent, market-driven institutions...but also constraining them from making politically uncomfortable decisions.
It's a recipie for failure. She's just flusing the bailout money down the drain.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I agree essentially
What is gross, is that so many folks ( I include myself here ) have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to what actually happened with the banks and the perception.
People are angry and McCaskil has tapped into their fury over this whole mess.
If the media is the message then someone from the banks needs to explain that these so called bonuses aren't paid out of the bailout money, but from actual earnings on projects that were profitable that the bank managers completed successfully. (We can hope.)
If the solution is schizophrenic, then we will end up with a mentally ill economic system. Isn't the public private model of business already proved to be a bad one?
I'm only half stupid
So...what do you think about the $18B Wall St. bonuses?
I am appauled. My company has said we probably won't get bonuses this year. So when I see schmucks lose a ton of money and still get huge bonuses I get pissed!
I think if they want to be lynched
then this is a damn good way to go about making it happen.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Who is doing what for tomorrow's game?
I'm barbequeing today so I don't have to tomorrow.
I'll probably be back home
Sister's birthday was Friday.
I haven't watched the last two Super Bowls, but I might watch this one. I don't really have a dog in the fight and professional sports isn't as exciting as college, but if it is an interesting game I might have to watch it.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Usually I play a betting square, this year I'm not.
I don't really care. I would like to see the Cardinals win but I expect the Steelers to win.
The Flappers Come Home to Roost
The celebratory mood at the World Economic Summit is muted.
Two years ago it was all gilded age and lavish foods and wine, back slapping parties and 'flap dancing'. This year there is a mood of contrition, bewilderment and humility at the scope and breadth of the economic crises, and no one, I repeat no one seems to know a way out. It will be a slow step by step process for which there is no easy fix. It's crazy!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=abAA1ieh6wTk
I'm only half stupid
Republican Albatross
Sheldon Richman
hits the nail on the end:
Or even the not-so-radical free market movement.
Only in politics can a man be perceived as a women simply because he repeatedly says he is. ;)
Yes, I am in total agreement...
...However with the loss of the POTUS election, the early loss of congress, and with the infusion of ideas like Ron Paul's and the incredible response from young people, we have Steele in the RNC now, the Republican movement is energized and fired up about getting back to its conservative roots, and turning people on to the ideas around personal freedom and responsibility, limited government, and fiscal conservatism! So this is an exciting time to e apart of it all, I have not sensed this kind of enthusiasm and optimism in the GOP since 79-80 and the Reagan years...
In other words, the loss of this election was our gain!
I am pleased to see them do whats right, and look more to holding them to it... then some partisan attempt to crucify them on a Bush built Fiscal cross.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's all fine and good but...
don't hold it against me if I'm not about to go down to my local GOP chapter and sign on. ;)
Same here. It is unfortunate
Same here. It is unfortunate that, given my geographic location, discussions never seem to deviate from the definition of marriage, abortion, and tax breaks for small businesses. Any attempt at adding any depth to those conversations quickly draws stares...
Not so...
We're talking about a fairly broad and engaging agenda...
Like Reagan we think the DOE is a waste of money, the FED often is the topic and how we could do without it, repealing the 16th amendment, going to a flat tax...these are all things Reagan talked about, and are still as attractive now, maybe more so than ever before.
Typical Republican/Constitutionalist stuff...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Oh Obama Where Art THou?
...or...
Where the F is FEMA Mutha F'er?
HT Jeff Emanuel
;
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Just another example of the gross incompetence we face.
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The problem with this argument
Is that Obama took office less than two weeks ago. He doesn't even have a permanent head for FEMA yet. Nancy Ward took the role of acting administrator for the organization Jan 21st.
Gues what that means? Yep, the same people screwing up now are the ones Bush had put in place. Obama hasn't had any time to replace them yet. The Bush cronyism continues to cost us lives.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just think about that for a second...
But NBC won't run it
during Superbowl....Why?
Their money is as green as Go Daddy's. (And after a few of those Go Daddy commercials you may find yourself having to think about this kind of stuff if you know what I mean...)
So much for fredom of speech at NBC, huh!
NBC/MSNBC is a libeal joke of a broadcasting network(s) at this point!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
They also won't run this one
'Veggie Love': PETA's Banned Super Bowl Ad
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And that one
was made expressly to be rejected so that PETA could cry foul and continue their "woe is me" routine.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Exactly, so how does that fit into the video I posted?
It doesn't.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
They both
get the free publicity of being banned from the Superbowl.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ya so...
NBC is wrong, it is a problem...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm not aware
of any laws that require NBC to be right.
If they want, they can be as biased as they like as to any political ads. Isn't that the free market in action?
We can reinstate the fairness doctrine if you're worried about NBC corrupting the minds of our children.
;-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Good try...
Forcing a media outlet to give equal time/space/etc...you with me...is one thing....
Denying someone an opportunity to pay for advertising...is another.
It's exactly the opposite of the fairness doctrine.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Infallible Wiki
Fairness Doctrine
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that is honest, equitable, and balanced."
I didn't see any commercial showing that a zygote doesn't have a soul.
I can see that they didn't mention the bible or soul "explicitly" but it's as implicit as anything can be.
ie its like saying 2+2 always equals 4 and someone saying that only in base 10 is that true, and person A confused on why base 10 was brought up "out of no where."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Jesus Brutus...half the time I can't figure out...
...what the F you're saying!
The fairness doctrine is BS, fairness is if you don't like Rush, put Keith Olberman on your own station and see what happens.
Should they have to sell fords at toyota dealerships too.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Focusin
....If they're not selling Toyota's no need to force them to sell Fords.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
come again...
If they are not selling toyotas....no need to force them to sell fords...
And if they are selling toyotas....force them to sell fords too?
What the hell are you talking about?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
...
Red_Wing: But NBC won't run it during Superbowl....Why?
Stinerman: We can reinstate the fairness doctrine if you're worried about NBC corrupting the minds of our children.
Red_wing:Forcing a media outlet to give equal time/space/etc...you with me...is one thing.... Denying someone an opportunity to pay for advertising...is another.
Brutus: They didn't give time to the other side either and would likely not air an ad asking people to consider abortions.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ah I see the gist of what you're saying...
Well I was the one who said the fairness doctrine is not applicable, so we agree there I suppose.
As for them not letting the other side, I could care less, my point on first pass is, if you own a media outlet it seems you have the obligation to take advertising from whomever, unless they violate some industry standard of rejection.
I mean otherwise is it not akin to a form of colusion?
Maybe not...Fox ran Obama ads...the NYT refused McCain's oped?
Go figure...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
We'll continue from here
Since you answered my question in the other subthread here.
Why do I have an obligation to anyone to do anything with my property?
As a follow up, would you support legislation to require people run ads unless they violate an industry standard?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well good Q's...
First let me say I have not processed this, but here is my initial response...
I of course am not for legislation if it is not necessary, however we are talking about the fourth estate here. I am required to post an ad in my local paper when I do a DBA, or if someone files bankruptcy, or getting a divorce, therefore there is an implied access to the medium. Would they be right to post a christian bookstores DBA but not a adult bookstore's?
Papers used to take pride in journalism standards, and went out of their way to make sure there were no transgressions in this area, not so today. So I am not sure how we address the potential imbalance of a particular businesses access to the media, which is so critical to any org, biz, etc, not only that, but if you just don't have access, even paid advertising, its a sort of monopoly, no.
All kinds of ideas are racing through my head, so I am not sure...but as I said...at first pass I feel papers, MSM outlets should have to carry advertising unless they meet some standard that would disqualify any applicant.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A sidebar on DBA, bankruptcy, etc.
Those are outdated laws. Newspapers used to be the source of news. I don't see the need for bankruptcies or DBAs, etc. needing to be printed in a newspaper. They should just be posted on a government website. Anyone who doesn't have Internet access or a local library can have any of these documents furnished to them at cost. That solves that problem.
Back in the 50s and 60s I'd agree, but I've seen a lot of evidence that from the days of the revolution all the way up to the Depression newspapers were even more one-sided and unprofessional than they are today.
I take the 1st amendment pretty literally. Newspapers should not have to take anyone's ad for any reason, including those that are for the aformentioned items. I generally extend this protection to broadcasters except that they use the public airwaves so a slight bit more of regulation is in order. Even then, I think the FCC ought not to be in the content police business but of ensuring that there is no frequency overlap on radio or TV stations.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
See though, there ia a thousand things you think should...
...be this or that...
I do too, I'm not sure of my position, but you saying you don't like it dosen't change that.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What does the fairness doctrine have to do with anything?
Did I miss the memo that it has been reinstated?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4up-post a bit more
n/t
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Going at face value then
So it is your position that if I have the proper money to pay for an ad on a radio or television station, that station should be obligated to take my money and run my ad?
Scenario: If I want to run an ad on the Rush Limbaugh show that says all Republicans are racist, homophobes who want to eat Muslim children, including Rush himself, the producers of his show and owners of the station on which the show is broadcast have no right to reject my ad if I have money in hand? Really?
Lets put it another way, should Fox News be required to run an ad for MSNBC if MSNBC has the cash in hand? Or is it the right of Fox News to reject any ad for any reason? Or do they need to give a sufficiently good reason?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ok...
I think yes rush should have to run an ad...but as I said it must meet some industry standard to be rejected...I would submit that it could be stated that any racist, inflamatory, personal attacks do not meet eligability, and could then be rejected.
I did see ads for MSNBC on FOX during the election, CNN too.
So I again submit that they should have to accept legitamate paid advertising unless it meets some (perferably)industry standard, (but perhaps there are laws that already address this, anti discrimination/colusion/what have you), that states it must not cross x lines, and must meet x standards or it will be rejected.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Furthermore
...both organizations are trying to expand people's awareness of the value of life! ;)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Woe is me?
PETA is often confrontational and over-the-top, but I don't see them as pity-seekers at all. Whether this was made expressly to be rejected or not, the goal is to get people talking about the message, not the messengers.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
They declined this for explicit sexuality.
They told the Life people they do not take specia interest ads...
This ad is no worse than Go Daddy, and the Life ad should be allowed...it's not right..I'm sure we'll see this one go to court...
It's lame...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
If it does go to court
Is it your position that NBC or any other broadcaster should be forced by the government to air ads that it does not wish to air?
That'd seem to be about as obvious a first amendment violation as one could find.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Meh
Its their dollar.
I probably wouldn't run that ad if I was the person in charge of it because it wouldn't be something that would go with the Super Bowl.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
NBC doesn't want to take it's cash cow behind the shed
The NFL shows games so they can get tv contracts.
Broadcasters show the games to air commercials.
The Broadcasters show what they think will make them the most money in short and long term.
Not to mention the ad doesn't really make any argument, one could just as easily Adolph's father at the end of the video, and denounce having unwanted children. And shouldn't the ad being saying something like the soul no longer enters the fetus at the time of quickening but as soon as it's a zygote...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Its a TV ad, for crying out
Its a TV ad, for crying out loud, not a doctoral thesis on the theological, ethical, and philosophical implications of Abortion.
And I will say this, not
And I will say this, not everyone believes things, for the stereotypical reasons you think they do. I'm pro-life, and don't even believe in the dualism of soul and body. RW, I believe is Pro-Life, and he's an agnostic who does not believe in the Bible.
You didn't put your stamp on the ad
Catholics do believe...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
American Public Schools...You Gotta Love Em'....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I don't think that hardly
I don't think that hardly merits a whole chapter.
Ok
In another pathetic example....
Better?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Thank goodness the glorious Peoples Republic of Pittsburgh
recognize the value and hard work of their brothers and sisters in the Teachers Union.
We live in a great country, eh comrade?
I've lived in Pittsburgh area my entire life
Quite frankly, you don't understand the relationship the people of Pittsburgh have with the Steelers.
There is no other relationship like it in the world.
The 2-hour delays... which weren't limited to the public schools, by the way (most of the Pittsburgh Diocese Catholic schools did so also), were for the students - not the teachers.
Unless you've lived here for a period of time, you could never even begin to understand it.
Sunday was to Pittsburgh what V-E day was to America.
350,000 people lined the streets for the parade on Tuesday. Pittsburgh proper only has a population of 325,000.
Pittsburgh and surrounding communities are about 1.8 million people. So... basically.... 1 in every 6 people in Western PA was at the parade yesterday.
The Steelers are family. This was our family returning from war.
I survived the Bush Administration
How theatrical...
...I am a 3rd generation Charger season ticket holder, I love the Chargers, cities love their teams intensly in many cities throughout America, Pittsburg is no different.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes... it really is different
Pittsburgh (with an "H", you heathen ;-) ) really is different than any other place in America when it comes to the relationship of the team to the city's residents.
The only close parallel in America might be Green Bay and it's relationship with the Packers....
The closest parallel in the world is the relationship between the citizens of Manchester, UK and their beloved United.
The closest thing in passion might be Texas and Friday night high school football.... times 10.
The reason you think my post is "theatrical" is because the relationship between the Chargers and San Diego really isn't in the same league and you can't begin to comprehend it.
Talking to you about this is like trying to describe an orgasm to a virgin.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Well, as long as you're convinced, that's what matters...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I respectfully submit
...all of New England's relationship with the Boston Red Sox as pretty damned special, too. :)
Pittsburgh has won six world championships in many of it's fan's lifetimes. It's easy to love that. Try going on an 86-year dry spell and still having incredibly passionate fans. October 27, 2004: Now that was a celebration, my friend! :)
Interestingly, the Cardinals lost in both cases.
Oh yeah, and Go Cubs!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I suggest you all
get over watching grown men get paid ridiculous sums to play with a ball. I agree with the characterization of these relationships as "special" so long as we use the term in the same sense as the "special olympics."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I suggest you all get over
It's not much different than grown men watching overpaid actors pretend they are someone else.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
LOL!
+5!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Half right
I agree with the overpaid part in regards to the highest paid actors, but other than that no it really is quite different. Acting can tell a story, it can impart information, a new perspective. Sport is merely sport. A game. Now games can be fun and a good way to relax/exercise- provided you actually play them.
Creating a faux sense of local identification with a team, who are really little more than mercenaries traded around willy nilly, is silly. There's nothing really "new york" about the Yankees, except that that's where those players happen to be that year. Nor is there any reason to believe the players give a damn about the city or the fans.
The concept of having a "home" team to root for against all others, and of investing some portion of your self worth in their ability to win contests, is nothing more than antiquated tribal bullshit. We're better than that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Iraq vote
Read these passages and see if something doesn't leap out at you:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL1417635
So turnout was low in Baghdad and a surprisingly unsympathetic and somewhat hostile government figure isblaming people not updating their address registration.
Gee, do you think the major ethnic segregation of Baghdad could possibly be involved? Just maybe? And given the response of the (presumably Shia) al-Haidari, is it just possiblethat thi is being used as an excuse to disenfranchise Sunnni voters?
Oh also:
Glad to know we spent trillions (literally when you include all the hidden costs) and sacrificed thousands for this. In addition I'd give you 50-50 odds that we see a post election blow up, probably in Kirkuk.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Disapointing but not surprising
But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.
Under executive orders
issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
This is disappointing if unsurprising news. Liberty and human rights are going to take a long time to recover from the last 8 years, if indeed they ever do when one party actively enjoys atrocity and the other is mostly inured to it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
NO SUPERBOWL THREAD????
Where's Brendan, we should have done that chat screen deal or something...
Hey pass me the chips.... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What a great game, though
I watched the first half at the old man's and then made the trek back home.
I saw the tail end of the 4th quarter just before the safety. I thought for sure that Kurt Warner was channeling Jesus Himself, but it seems that God was on the side of that infamous ganja jockey, Santonio Holmes.
Well done, Steelers!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well Done OSU player
Pat Tillman and Kurt Warner ended their careers on the same team [Kurt might/will retire].
Holmes showed off his Big 10 speed and unnecessary celebrations with time running low.
And, the NFL needs to start calling holding or never calling holding. If that safety was holding, then they need to call the hug blocking holding too. Bunch of Care Bears out there and it's normally only called holding if the blocker is behind the defender or if the defender falls down.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Now *this* is how you do historical revisionism
http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_knight/2009/02/01/repost-the-myth-of-th...
I have to applaud Martin Knight for so thoroughly embracing "the Big Lie" concept. Outside of Holocaust deniers you rarely see such brazen dismissal of actual history in favor of the author's pretend version.
Bra-vo!
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Next Up: Claiming there was no Zoot Suit Riot
After that: Claiming Benedict Arnold was really still a Patriot Revolution the whole time.
Next: Stalin wasn't really an Atheist, he was raised in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Then he'll claim that German citizens of the Third Reich didn't realize where there new free stuff was coming from, sure they're neighbors went on "vacation" and haven't come back, but the stuff could be from anywhere.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well it is black history month
It's the perfect time to whitewash the history.
I'm only half stupid
At least he took the time to be thorough...
...and support his position with facts and a timeline.
Not just shoot off at the mouth with only liberal sarcasm and 0 supporting evidence.
Are you claiming George Wallace, Robert Byrd and the boy's weren't Democrats?
Funny how you liberals get when presented with facts...all nervous, start making silly little anecdotes...LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That was lame
And there are "facts" and supporting evidence and timeline that could be used by someone trying to make the case that FDR knew what was going to happen on 12/7/41.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
And this is why exactly he bothers
because too many people will look at all the nicely formatted text and assume it has substance. Read what he wrote RW, there's nothing there but BS. Yes a great many racists were Ds becasue at one point the D's were the party for choice for racists, but then the Republicans specifically appealed to those same people and overnight the electoral map radically shifted. Look at the maps. Georgia went D from 1940 to 1960 without fail. Suddenly in 1964 it went republican, and has except for 1968 (when it went for the American Independence, read racist, party candidate), 1976 which bucked all trends due to Nixon's resignation and pardon, 1980 when it went for Carter (it was his home state), and 1992 when clinton won it by .6%. In other words it went from 100% democratic to 66% repiublican, 72% republican if we throw out the weird election of 1976. Or if you prefer 75% of the time voting either Republican or for the American Independence party. That's a pretty radical swing. And it coincides with similar swings in the other deep south states.
Look at the states that had a majority votes for Geroge Wallace in 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968
Those are the same states you see as the GOP base today. Not exactly a coincidence.
Or to answer Martin simply- yes a lot of racists were once dems, and there's a reason they left that party and joined yours.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There is way more than race in those figures, come on...
...how one dimensional to think that...thats like saying anyone who has conservative values, and lives in the south, is a racist!
Ridiculous!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
There is more than race
certainly, but race is one factor. No not everyone in the south or anyone with conservative values is a racist. But at the very least white supremacist racists have moved from being in the democrat camp to being in the republican camp.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nobody's contesting the data
Nobody's contesting the data you're putting up about the South going from Dem to Republican, what's being questioned is why. I'd guess that some of it had to do with racism, however, I also think that's probably an oversimplification. I'm guessing another reason for the switch may have been the fact that a culture war was brewing, and the Dems were beginning to be seen as the party of the hippies, and of course the south tended to be more socially conservative.
Certainly.
As above there's more than just race going on, but Martin Knight wanted to say racism had nothing to do with it, and that's bull. The GOP in the mid 60s consciously reached out to southern racists wooing them away from the democrat party, and ever since the south has been a fairly strong lock for the party. Couple that with a look at the dearth of minorities the GOP has put in positions of power (and it is a fair question whether the GOP would have elected Steele if iit had not been for Obama) and there's a clear pattern emerging. I've heard a number of republicans complain about their party being viewed as racist, may answer is why don't they do something about the racists who are in their party?
Maybe start with the Tancredo-ites...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
THAT, is to funny, you don't actually believe this do you?
The truth is, the Democratic party abandoned it's principles and became dominated by liberals, to where today it has gotten to the point of absurdity. Democrats flocked to the GOP during that period throughout the country, and since the south has the bible belt, and old southern democratic families with traditional value systems, the GOP did well there.
The above quote is nonsense, you should be embarrassed to even suggest such a thing.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hmm...
If the Democratic party has gone liberal to the point of absurdity, what does that say about this "center right" country of ours that has handed them convincing victories in the past two election cycles?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well it says that you have successfully crucified GW...
...and pawned responsibility for all that ails ya on the evil republicans, and BO did enough shucking and jiving to fool a lot of Americans.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Barry should try and wrap his hands around Michelle's hippo's...
One downside to installing an adolescent in the White House is he's likely to behave like one — like Chairman Zero did yesterday by publicly ridiculing Jessica Simpson's figure
. The Anointed One observed that the lovely Ms. Simpson is "in a weight battle apparently." This predictably brought yuks from NBC's execrable Matt Lauer.
That will teach Simpson for traveling far and wide
to visit the troops Obama has pointedly 
and repeatedly 
ignored.
On tips from SK and Karin.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
RW's Impression of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
That's a 4 year old pic.
I personally know people that have gained around 100 lbs in under 3 years.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Leave it to wingnuts
to make sh*t up. Any excuse to go low class and insult the first lady and her husband. Congrats!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18299.html
I'm only half stupid
Well, MO does have an ENORMOUS rear end...
...so I have no reason to retract anything there...
...but as for the statement Barry made, the politico clip straightened that out...
..so fair enough.
Funny how you are the A#1 hater in the blogosphere when it comes to Sarah Palin, GW, or anyone you find worthy of your disdain, but suddenly make claim to some patch of higher ground here! LOL!!!!!!
You crack me up!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
In other words....
I survived the Bush Administration
Whatever...
Your whole political sensibility is a lie!
When will you admit that?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
She ain't got enough meat for a guy like me
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Here a lobbyist, there a lobbyist, everywhere a lobbyist...
....old Obama's let us down
, e-i, e-i, oh.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
At least
you had the respect to use his proper name, for once. I'd say that's progress.
I'm only half stupid
Whose...Barry's?
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman