This election reveals a great weakness of the Democrats and a great strength of the Republicans:
The Republicans can take a near cretin like Palin (who is no more qualified for high office than the typical post-college age waitress) and apply a veneer of respectability by tutoring her on the the most basic geography, current events, and pronunciation. They end up with a candidate with huge support.
The Democrats have an experienced, well-qualified, knowledgeable public servant like Coakley dropped in their laps and they can't even coach her to conduct early polling or shake some hands outside Fenway Park.
LoveMonkey, I'm pretty sure a Republican ran for Senate in Mass every election cycle for the last 4 decades. Just admit the the Democratic party has severely overestimated Americans' tolerance for proverbial ass-fucking.
Significant numbers of people who voted for Obama crossed over to the Republicans. It was as explicit a repudiation of the last year as could be imagined.
But aren't you at risk picking up some "kennel cough" from visiting your jailed clients? Oh sure, now that you're an attorney you think you don't have time. But when you paid your way through law school as a gigolo you found time to have your willy checked each month.
I went to the doctor once last year and the cost before insurance was $122.
When you factor in that we have wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more advanced medical technology than other countries (i.e. there are no multi-million-dollar face transplants in Poland), the average gets all skewed.
Also: Hmm.. it's almost completely reversed from the health-care cost chart!
billymeade said: we have wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more advanced medical technology than other countries (i.e. there are no multi-million-dollar face transplants in Poland)
You have confused "expensive" with "advanced".
The first face replant, replacing a girls face that was removed by a thresher, was performed in India in 1994.
In 1994 a woman's face was replanted in Australia .
The very first donor face transplant was done in France in 2005. Zut alors!
Even freaking China performed a face transplant in 2006.
The Cleveland Clinic got around to doing a face transplant in 2008.
In 2009 in Spain a face was transplanted including the tongue and jaw.
Let me fix it for you:
we have wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more expensive medical technology than other countries (i.e. there are no two-thousand-dollar MRIs for sprained ankles in Poland-- or anywhere but the USA)
Yep. Since we're dealing with the obtuse and with stupid platitudes: Fuck Obamacare. Fuck socialized healthcare. Fuck the public option. Fuck all of that and fuck it hard.
However, I, and I believe most Republicans/conservatives, as well as those who might qualify as the least bit reasonable, would support the following rational reactions to the healthcare issues (including but not limited to):
— a provision mandating that insurance not be denied to people with pre-existing conditions. — language allowing portability of coverage from job to job. — elimination of lifetime "caps" on coverage for diseases such as cancer. — assurance of nationwide competition by providers to lower costs, i.e., permitting health insurance to be sold across state lines. — ceilings on malpractice claims.
I apologize if a little thing like the Constitution should get in the way of Obamacare. Show me where Congress has the constitutional power to mandate that individuals buy health insurance at the risk of being fined or jailed? Don't bother looking, such authority doesn't exist. And before LoveMonkey trots out the Commerce Clause, that permits Congress to regulate commerce...not REQUIRE commerce.
So, yeah, if by "health insurance," you mean the President's current POS plan, fuck it. Fuck it to death.
Yep. Since we're dealing with the obtuse and with stupid platitudes: Fuck Obamacare. Fuck socialized healthcare. Fuck the public option. Fuck all of that and fuck it hard.
However, I, and I believe most Republicans/conservatives, as well as those who might qualify as the least bit reasonable, would support the following rational reactions to the healthcare issues (including but not limited to):
— a provision mandating that insurance not be denied to people with pre-existing conditions. — language allowing portability of coverage from job to job. — elimination of lifetime "caps" on coverage for diseases such as cancer. — assurance of nationwide competition by providers to lower costs, i.e., permitting health insurance to be sold across state lines. — ceilings on malpractice claims.
I apologize if a little thing like the Constitution should get in the way of Obamacare. Show me where Congress has the constitutional power to mandate that individuals buy health insurance at the risk of being fined or jailed? Don't bother looking, such authority doesn't exist. And before LoveMonkey trots out the Commerce Clause, that permits Congress to regulate commerce...not REQUIRE commerce.
So, yeah, if by "health insurance," you mean the President's current POS plan, fuck it. Fuck it to death.
So everything that becomes law has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
Stuff Not in the Constitution (off the top of my head): - Social Security - Medicare - Public Education - the FBI - NASA - the CIA - the FCC - Workplace standards (child labor, safe work environment, etc.)
There are plenty of programs, privileges, and protections that aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The Constitution shouldn't be a hindrance to needed improvements in our society.
I've decided that all forms of fundamentalist literal adherence to the sanctity of old documents (the Bible, the Koran, the Constitution) annoys me.
Stim, you do realize that the Dude disapproves of all of those, don't you? (Well, I believe he will reconsider workplace standards once he becomes a plaintiffs' attorney.)
Also, please join me in my stance against the government take over of media distribution by boycotting your public library! How dare they!? If I want a book, magazine, CD, or movie, I will buy it in the free market at Borders, thank you very much.
LoveMonkey said: Stim, you do realize that the Dude disapproves of all of those, don't you? (Well, I believe he will reconsider workplace standards once he becomes a plaintiffs' attorney.)
Yes, I realized that as I was typing. Oh well. The point remains. I'm sure that conservatives are all for plenty of shit that is loosely based upon the Constitution. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to think of any examples at the moment. Help?
stim said: So everything that becomes law has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
stim said: The Constitution shouldn't be a hindrance to needed improvements in our society.
That's some pretty funny shit. Stim, you'd fail Intro to Constitutional Law. You're not even in the right book, let alone the right chapter, as to what you need to understand my point.
Here's a brief primer: Everything that Congress does does not have to be specifically referenced in the constitution. BUT, Congress is powerless to do anything unless they can point to a clause in the Constitution that grants them the power to do whatever it is that they want to do. If it's not in Article 1 (mostly Section 8) or in one of the Amendments to the constitution that supplement the Legislative branch's power, they can't do it.
The Commerce clause has NEVER been interpreted to go as far as would be necessary to hold Obamacare constitutional. And the general welfare clause has neither been interpreted, even by liberal courts, to apply to this situation.
P.S. Your throwaway line about fundamental literal adherence to the constitution is pretty dim on a couple levels, the most obvious one being the fact that the constitution can be amended. Your annoyance is an unfortunate side effect to the rule of law. What a pity.
P.P.S. Other than your stupid and irrelevant comments, LoveMonkey, I notice you've not pointed to the necessary authority. I take it therefore that you agree with me that Obamacare would be unconstitutional.
I'll also assume that you two believe that failing to purchase health insurance should be a jailable offense since that's in the president's POS plan. How progressive.
Also, your too short list of health care reforms would make a good start*, but Republicans have not credibility on health care. In the decade of Republican control they could not take time from looting the country to implement even one of them.
*I would support #4 only as long as the state AGs and insurance boards were still permitted to kick out the teeth of misbehaving insurers.
stim said: So everything that becomes law has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
stim said: The Constitution shouldn't be a hindrance to needed improvements in our society.
That's some pretty funny shit. Stim, you'd fail Intro to Constitutional Law. You're not even in the right book, let alone the right chapter, as to what you need to understand my point.
Here's a brief primer: Everything that Congress does does not have to be specifically referenced in the constitution. BUT, Congress is powerless to do anything unless they can point to a clause in the Constitution that grants them the power to do whatever it is that they want to do. If it's not in Article 1 (mostly Section 8) or in one of the Amendments to the constitution that supplement the Legislative branch's power, they can't do it.
The Commerce clause has NEVER been interpreted to go as far as would be necessary to hold Obamacare constitutional. And the general welfare clause has neither been interpreted, even by liberal courts, to apply to this situation.
P.S. Your throwaway line about fundamental literal adherence to the constitution is pretty dim on a couple levels, the most obvious one being the fact that the constitution can be amended. Your annoyance is an unfortunate side effect to the rule of law. What a pity.
P.P.S. Other than your stupid and irrelevant comments, LoveMonkey, I notice you've not pointed to the necessary authority. I take it therefore that you agree with me that Obamacare would be unconstitutional.
Oh . . . wait a min . . . ahh . . . I was reading from the Cuntstitution. It's a far superior document. I particularly like the "Hot Fur" clause.
That's simply untrue. Bushyprez pushed health savings accounts. While they were obviously not the cure to all the country's healthcare ills, they were, and are still, not a bad idea and should be on the table in any healthcare reform conversation. If I recall correctly, and I know I do, when he pushed them, the Democrats lost their shit - they were the "Party of No," if you will - and defeated them...just like the Republicans will defeat Obamacare.
P.S. Republicans defeated slavery. I'm sure you merely forgot, therefore it's important to remind you liberals about that from time to time, since you wouldn't stoop to being so disingenuous to pretend otherwise, would you? Credibility, my ass.
Dude, if your ketamine shakes will allow you to scroll up, you will see that Stim asked about "conservatives" not "Republicans". And in any event, the Republicans are now the descendants of the vile Dixiecrats.
Yep! Lots of Dixiecrat descendants in Virginia (okay, maybe)...and New Jersey ...and Massachusetts!
"Blue Dog" Democrats are the true descendants of the "vile Dixicrats." By the way, the Democrats are the only party with a former KKK member in their federal ranks. Nice try, though.
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
I'll get on that as soon as you show me the way. I think getting rid of your truck, since that is so odious to liberals and the HopeyChanger, is a good start.
Dude, you seem to live in a cartoon world. And not the good kind, the Japanese animated porn, but a bizarre distortion of reality where the truth get pixilated.
You must switch over. It is much better here. ...Well, except for the tentacle rape.
I did laugh out loud last night at MSNBC when they mentioned the "Dixiecrats" - "Quick - we don't wanna look racist... let's use our Southern StrategyTM wherein we raise the specter of the old Southern slavemaster, then remind everyone that the South is Republican now. Perfect!"
The Dude said: I'll get on that as soon as you show me the way. I think getting rid of your truck, since that is so odious to liberals and the HopeyChanger, is a good start.
stim said: I've decided that all forms of fundamentalist literal adherence to the sanctity of old documents (the Bible, the Koran, the Constitution) annoys me.
I'll remember this during the next Strongsville Teacher's Union dispute.
LoveMonkey said: You have confused "expensive" with "advanced".
* The first face replant, replacing a girls face that was removed by a thresher, was performed in India in 1994. * In 1994 a woman's face was replanted in Australia . * The very first donor face transplant was done in France in 2005. Zut alors! * Even freaking China performed a face transplant in 2006. * The Cleveland Clinic got around to doing a face transplant in 2008. * In 2009 in Spain a face was transplanted including the tongue and jaw.
And these were all free? Can you provide links to the cost information please? You can't? Oh. Well, I guess it's safe to just assume every surgery is free, right? Phew.
You missed my point and turned it into a "who does face transplants" argument, and proved me right on that one - there were no face transplants in Poland.
Also, regarding healthcare, be it Republican or Democrat, polls show that nobody wants this bill. That's how democracy works. Is it always right? Nope, that's why Obama's the President. However, them's the rules.
If the Democrats would stop being such cunts (hard when being led by Nancy "Cunt" Pelosi and Harry "Cunt" Reid), they would pass something meaningful. Instead, all they're doing is passing something, just so they can say the did, and 98% of Americans who don't read the paper will go "YAY! Reform! Wait, what? Idol is on!"
That poll doesn't exactly say what you want it to say:
"While overall public support for passing a healthcare bill currently outweighs opposition by a slight margin, the reverse is true among Americans who are seemingly more certain in their position. This is evident in the responses to Gallup's initial question on the healthcare vote in which 37% of Americans say they would advise their member of Congress to vote for healthcare legislation this year and 41% would advise voting against it. In the follow-up question -- in which respondents who don't initially have a view are pressed to say which way they lean -- more say they lean toward supporting the bill than opposing it. Hence, total support for the bill today is slightly greater than opposition.
...
Public support for passing healthcare reform legislation this year is marginally higher than it was three months ago, but still doesn't rise to majority level. Thus, neither party in Washington can claim that advancing or, alternatively, defeating the legislation represents the will of the people on this important issue. However, the Democrats may have the politically riskier position (headed into a midterm election year), as more than half of political independents side with most Republicans in opposing the bill."
When you only have a plurality upon "pressing" the respondents to say which way they lean, that does not mean "more Americans want a health care bill passed this year." This just shows polls can be manipulated, especially when the middle 20% is fluid from month to month.
According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress' current work on the bill. The majority of political independents, whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.
...
The public's desire to slow down the Democrats' healthcare reform efforts also appears to reflect doubts about whether the issue deserves the attention political leaders in Washington have given it over the past several months. A minority of 32% of Americans say President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are right to make healthcare reform their top priority at this time. In contrast, 46% acknowledge health reform as an important goal but believe other problems should be addressed first, and an additional 19% reject the idea that healthcare should be a major legislative priority.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) say given the country’s current economic situation, the Obama administration should wait on health care reform until the economy improves. That’s a 10-point increase from March of last year. Thirty-three percent (33%) still say the White House should move forward with health care reform.
Seventy percent (70%) of voters nationwide say the health care issue was important in the special Senate election in Massachusetts. That number includes 49% who say it was very important. Only 15% think the health care issue was not very or not at all important in the Tuesday election.
LoveMonkey said: Dude, you seem to live in a cartoon world...a bizarre distortion of reality where the truth get pixilated.
1. Changing the topic from that son of a bitch, Reality, doesn't make it go away. Most people don't want Obamacare and even if a bare majority did, you don't impose a sweeping change imposing a permanent welfare dependency that cannot be undone on the entire nation based on that bare majority.
2. There is an actual history of the Dixiecrats - but repeating the stilted version you read on The Daily Kos ain't it.
"Although its membership is clearly not Southern, some[4][5] view the Blue Dogs as the political successors to a now defunct-in-name Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils, who played a critical role in the early 1980s by supporting President Ronald Reagan's tax cut plan. The Boll Weevils, in turn, may be considered the descendants of the Dixiecrats and the 'states' rights' Democrats of the 1940s through '60s."
Truth is, there is no hard and fast, clean lineage to the descendants of the Dixiecrats. Many, most?, have become modern day conservative Democrats, i.e. Blue Dog Democrats. Some became Republicans. Some broke off and became independents.
Those are unfortunate truths though for you, LoveMonkey, that make it difficult to engage in your normal pattern of douchbaggery and demagoguery.
The AIG collapse fucked over 100% of American taxpayers (and begged to keep it a secret!), and our pal Timmy Geithner, and his other AIG cronies in the White House, have their dickprints all over it.
Ha - I like this quote: "he came to the conclusion that the government 'can't spend more money than it has'". Oh thank God it only took a $12 trillion deficit to figure that out.
Of course it is the irresponsible Bush/Cheney fatcat tax cuts and the needless war in Iraq that account for fully half the deficit. It was Cheney who told Paul O'Neal, "deficits don't matter."
We must raise the taxes on the rich. The funds that some of the rich have hidden from the IRS in Swiss and other banks should be confiscated in their entirety.
If we use LoveMonkey's logic, since Bush raised the deficit, it's only right for Obama to do so, and do it harder and faster. I guess that makes sense.
I wonder which Republican tenet Obama will adopt next? Hopefully more tax cuts, I'm sick of these measly paychecks!
"The Democratic nominee for Illinois' lieutenant governor dropped out of the race Sunday night"... after - holy crap - trying to slit the throat of his ex-hooker-girlfriend??? Wow.
Also, apparently Gov. Paterson of NY is about to have a bomb dropped on him, and the party is already planning his resignation. Bet he never saw that coming! Zing?
Our Lord Most High now wants to tap your cellphone without a warrant. Here's some choice quotes from the outraged:
"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?"
"The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the president that amount to little more than, 'Trust me. Trust me,'"
"The president seems to have admitted that he secretly eliminated this entire legal process. That raises very serious questions about U.S. intelligence operations and about the president's commitment to obeying the law".
OH WAIT, my bad. Those were quotes from Democrats bitching when Bush announced that the NSA was wiretapping known terrorists. Oops!
Be careful, Democrats - once you start using reconciliation to pass policy, it will be used against you one day.
It also could spell the end of the United States as a constitutional republic. If the President dictates non-military policy and the Congress approves it regardless of the will of the people, and only by using obscure procedures meant to silence opposition, what's the purpose of Congress anyway?
Who would've guessed that we would be in this much of a mess merely 1 year into Our Savior's rule? Kinda sucks, whether you're on His side or not.
Again, to the Democratic congresspersons who read this blog: Be careful how you proceed - precedent can be a bitch.
January 19 2008 - "The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
March 4, 2010 - Obama administration refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide based on diplomats distorting historical facts: "I believe that Turkey values its relations with the United States at least as much as we value our relations with Turkey" - Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman
billymeade said: Again, to the Democratic congresspersons who read this blog: Be careful how you proceed - precedent can be a bitch.
I am aware that the Republicans have used reconciliation many times in the past. So, I guess, here ya go, Republicans - it's gonna bite you in the ass.
You know, if this were an issue that came up quickly and required a bare majority to pass, that question *might* make some sense.
But when the process has been months and months and months (and months and months) long where poll after poll after poll showed the majority of the American public is not in favor of passing the bill and a special election was won IN FUCKING MASSACHUSETTS by a REPUBLICAN who WON TED KENNEDY'S FUCKING SEAT while campaigning primarily against this very issue, well, when that happens, that question is just fucking retarded.
The undemocratic nature of this garbage is more than obvious.
billymeade said: I am aware that the Republicans have used reconciliation many times in the past. So, I guess, here ya go, Republicans - it's gonna bite you in the ass.
To an extent, that's true and it certainly doesn't help the Republicans' argument, but there has never been a state of affairs like this one where Republicans or Democrats have used reconciliation for such a sweeping, unpopular, undemocratic legislative endeavor. There is no precedent for this. This is unprecedented.
Wow, I thought reconciliation was stupid, but this "Deem and Pass" nonsense is truly frightening for passing laws of this magnitude. "HI! We're revampling 1/6th of our economy! But we're gonna use the double-secret underhand invisibutt voting technique! Shhh! Don't tell anyone - it's for your own good, we promise!! That's why we have to be all convoluted about it."
Obama and Pelosi get shadier by the weekday hour. What a fucking disaster.
I don't recall saying the contrary. "Deem and Pass", "Self-Execution" - whatever it's called this week - is convoluted and secretive by its very nature. It's especially chickenshit when the law in question affects nearly every citizen.
1. What a joke. You mean the vote Pelosi and pals continue to delay because they still, as of this late date, cannot concoct a majority even with all the arm-twisting, anal rape and the threat of worse behind closed doors? That majority vote?
2.
The US Constitutions says in Article I, Section 7, the portion related to passage of bills: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Funny how there is no such "Deem and Pass" procedure outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution requires a "direct" vote, not some bullshit procedural "rule" concocted for the legislative, "indirect" raping of our democracy. You want a "majority vote"? Then have the balls to vote on the bill itself, not on some procedural work-around. It's amazing the bastards who complained about the unconstitutionality of such things as the Patriot Act (and who have since retained it on their own watch) see no problem with this indefensible bullshit. The ends truly do justify the means for the evil raping bastard liberals and Democrats in power and their retarded supporters/apologists.
This, by the way, is just the beginning of the many possible constitutional challenges to this mess.
Hahaha. I knew you'd go there. That'd be an interesting point except for the fact that the filibuster is not a procedural rule on legislating or voting itself, rather it's a rule for cutting off debate in order to get to the vote itself. It is not constitutionally required and it could easily be gotten rid of without violating the constitution. Furthermore, the filibuster isn't really the minority party doing anything. It's a rule that allows for super majorities to CUT OFF debate. The Democrats' failure to procure 60 votes in the Senate anymore is the actual failure with regard to the filibuster. The only problem I had with the Democrats' use of the filibuster during the Bush administration was not that they used it - it's a legitimate procedural rule - but rather that they used it for things that it had not historically been used on, i.e., to filibuster the nomination of judges, where historically it had only been used with regard to legislation and spending.
Nice attempt to confuse the issue by pointing out my colloquial usage of the common terminology (fired off immediately before heading out the door) as if it refutes my technical point. It doesn't. The minority sect, as this is not always a minority party issue, cannot do anything if the majority sect has 60 votes. I like how you ignored the constitutional point as well. You're swinging and missing at virtually everything these days...
Dude, if you really don't like legislation to be "deemed passed" by the self-executing rule then you missed 35+ chances to bitch when the GOP used it in 2005-6. It is entirely constitutional-- it is the filibuster that enjoys no constitutional protection.
I hope you find your feigned indignation aerobic so it might be somewhat useful to somebody.
All sorts of minor things are passed through less obstructive means. Their constitutionality is only at issue when it is challenged. The fact that "Deem and Pass" or the "Self Execution" has been used doesn't mean it's legitimate. Indeed, it's legitimacy is largely dependent upon what it is being used for. As a matter of fact, Pelosi and Slaughter both signed onto amicus briefs challenging the constitutionality of such a measure when it was for something as simple as a clerical correction. But now they want to use it to pass something slightly larger. That take some hubris. It's one thing to use shortcuts for very minor things and clerical errors. It's quite another to hide behind shortcuts when you're assraping the country.
Regarding your first example and your comment "...Pelosi and Slaughter both signed onto amicus briefs challenging..." -- That's because it is always the minority argument. Now it is the GOP argument. Don't mean shit.
Your WSJ piece is merely opinion, not evidence.
I couldn't read the RedState piece because my internet filter blocks all sites that claim the Jews were behind 9/11.
The evidence is undisputed. I've yet to see a factual issue on this issue that's really being debated. The WSJ piece is opinion - it's argument, not intended to be "facts". That's what's left, especially when the facts aren't in dispute. As for your RedState complaint, I'd suggest laying off the Media Matters...that Eric Boehlert has some impressive blower's cramp.
Not only is this a good idea... it isn't good enough.
Under the current scheme lenders make loans that are both subsidized and guaranteed by the taxpayers. The lenders collect interest on loans that carry no risk and they get the outrageous fees. It is welfare for fat cat banks.
The new plan makes loans directly from America to the students, cutting out the lenders' skim. The processing and collections will be contracted to private companies. The plan will save taxpayers $6 billion each year.
The only problem with the new plan is that the interest rates are linked to T-bill auctions (which I think is about 6% now). It should be linked to the federal funds rate (the rate banks get) which is now about 0%. I think that students deserve the same rates as Goldman Sachs.
Hear that Billy, it's better your rate more than double up to 6% than that someone other than the government profit from your loans. I hope you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
To be fair, LoveMonkey argued that your interest rate should "about 0%" which would be nice, but it'd also be nice if I could have a fucking unicorn.
Billy, your rate won't change. Here are the rates:
For subsidized and unsubsidized loans first disbursed between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 2006, the interest rate for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, is 2.48% for loans in repayment and 1.88% during in-school, grace, and deferment periods. Similarly, for PLUS loans disbursed between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 2006, the interest rate is now 3.28%.
The interest rate for new subsidized and unsubsidized loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, is a fixed 6.80%, with these exceptions: subsidized undergraduate loans first disbursed between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009 (inclusive), have an interest rate of 6.00%; those disbursed between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, have a rate of 5.60%. This will be further reduced in coming years. The interest rate for PLUS loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, is a fixed 7.90%. For Direct consolidation loan interest rates, see that rate page for information.
Let's see how this turns out! Hopefully for the best.
...I had to roll my eyes at the people on the local news last night overjoyed that they could now afford their medication. I had to remind her via telepathy that a.) nothing in the bill will affect that and b.) nothing at all really kicks in until 2014. I hope she heard me.
There's nothing more fun than watching liberals try to spin Obama's newfound love for oil into something other than a cash-grab for the dreaded "Big Oil".
Ha - reality sets in. People are asking hospitals "Where is my free healthcare?" Answer? There is no free healthcare, dumbasses. Got a pre-existing condition? Pray you still have it in 2014!
LoveMonkey, I'm with you. I encourage this behavior on behalf of our president. The more time the Hopey Changer spends on the links or on the b-ball court with his boys or even hiding from the press whilst smoking his menthols, that's less time for him to assrape our country or to figuratively, or literally, kick our *actual* allies in the nuts.
Nor was there any confusion. One of the few things worse than being assraped is being assraped by more than entity or person at a time. Nothing like having your president and his corporate donors swordfight in your pooper.
Just for the record, I disapprove too. Goldman alums are everywhere. Goldman and the other big-assed banks are in everyone's ass. And it will get worse now that the activist lunatics on the Supreme Court have allowed unrestricted campaign donations by corporations.
LoveMonkey said: And it will get worse now that the activist lunatics on the Supreme Court have allowed unrestricted campaign donations by corporations.
Easy, Chicken Little.
This finally will pave the way for U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!!
Corporations are citizens: they're organizations of citizens in a specific form. The ludicrous proposition is that somehow they exist as some type of entity in and of themselves in which the citizens comprising the corporation give up their First Amendment rights.
Also, liberals using the term "activist" as applied to judges they disagree with is pure comedy gold.
I don't think it will be as bad as people say. Maybe on a local level, but I don't think it would be in any corporation's interest to publicly endorse a candidate. "McDonald's says vote for Obama!" Nah.
That's exactly right. As with almost all First Amendment disputes, the solution lies not with the government mandating less speech, but allowing more speech that is open and transparent. It'll be interesting to see how things play out, but this isn't an area where the sky will fall. And to hear Obama and Obamatards lament corporate speech when he was the recipient of more corporate donations than anyone ever (I'm fairly certain) - and after promising not to opt-out of public financing - well, that's just fucking rich.
You mean other than the fact that the dog is a dog and a corporation is a structured legal entity comprised of individuals? Nice try, though. I'd say your example is too clever by half, but that'd be a lie: it's not clever.
But, LoveMonkey, I anxiously await you joining the choir of true Americans demanding that our president return all political contributions from Goldman Sachs since he promised to have the most open, honest and ethical administration EVAR.
I don't see the difference. The owners of the corporation (or dog) don't surrender any first amendment rights by ownership. But the corporation's (or dog's) management shouldn't be granted rights of citizenship. Indeed, granting those rights to the management will dilute the individual rights of the owners.
The real problem is that corporations are managed to benefit their management, not their owners or society. This is certain: Goldman Sachs will use anything and do anything to enrich its executives and fuck the USA.
Also, the contributions for the 2008 election occurred before the misanthropes on the SC made up new rights for corporations, so all those contributions were from individuals and were within the legal campaign donation limits. To force the return of that money would deny the voice of those citizens (real citizens, Dude, with flesh and blood heartbeats... but not four-legged citizens).
Will you join me in calling for publicly financed elections?
Let's go to the source material. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1. Dogs are, of course, not people.
2. The meaning of the bolded phrase is clearly open to interpretation, but there is no reason, on its face, that it should be limited to actual physical assemblies or gatherings of people, rather than legal or otherwise structured organizations of people.
3. Granting rights to conglomerations of people does nothing to dilute the individual rights of the individuals for two reasons (at least): a. they are free to disassociate from the group by leaving the corporation or selling their stock (this is why corporations are protected but why labor unions with forced membership should not be) and b. they can still exercise their individual speech rights. Your argument is that they should be limited to b. alone. Unfortunately for that argument, the First Amendment clearly contemplates associations of individual persons.
So, again, and I quite enjoy the fact that you and other Obamatards and the SEC are foregoing the whole innocent until proven guilty track with Goldman Sachs - and maybe they are, but that's still TBD - but since you and your ilk are skipping that step, why should Obama not return the nearly $1,000,000 in campaign contributions he received?
Will you join us true Americans in demanding that he live up to his campaign promises or is that more rhetoric from the Hopey Changer that we are to ignore?
Political Action Committees are real citizens with flesh and blood heartbeats? Who knew?
And citizens demanding Obama live up to his campaign promises is not "forcing" him to do anything, merely calling him the liar he is until he gives it back. He's free to remain a liar.
And finally, I will not call for publicly funded elections. I believe in the First Amendment.
Corporations are, of course, not people. The owners of corporations (and dogs) are people.
Corporations are chartered by the government. All their rights and obligations, and indeed their very existence derive from the government and no other source.
The leap from legal entity for the purpose of certain financial transactions to non-human citizen is the fruit of a diseased mind. We can trace it back to pre-antibiotic days when loathsome diseases, even with prompt treatment, ravaged the minds of even the best men.
Will you not reconsider, and join us real true American patriots in calling for liberty, equality, fraternity, and publicly financed elections?
Publicly financed elections are great for many candidates, but I stand with those on the side of freedom, apple pie, baseball, bald eagles, Hulk Hogan, the Stars and Stripes, and the United States Constitution who support candidate Obama's right to opt out of publicly-financed elections in order to vindicate the free-speech rights of all those misguided idiots who support his candidacy with their tax-procured incomes instead of through the government-mandated, legal-entities whose very existence was required by the government without any Constitutional basis or authority, thus making a mockery of the First and Tenth Amendments, known as Political Action Committees, which were created only to stifle free speech and to undermine the American spirit and will.
We, of course, will hold him to his campaign promises though, such as to not opt-out of public-financing, unlike his mouth-breathing supporters.
It must be nice to always have "enact a tax on fat cats" as default masturbation material. Like normal, freedom loving, flesh-and-blood, American males, well, I'm stuck with pr0n.
Well, here it comes - finally we figure out how Obama plans to pay for his takeover of nearly all of the private sector: The Value-Added Tax!
Let's see: Step 1: Drive America into unrecoverable debt Step 2: Make those lazy Americans pay for it with all their extra money laying around. Step 3: Profit!
Yay. Fortunately, even Congressional Democrats aren't stupid enough to pass this. But the fact that Obama is even considering it should be frightening to anyone with a wallet.
billymeade said: Yay. Fortunately, even Congressional Democrats aren't stupid enough to pass this. But the fact that Obama is even considering it should be frightening to anyone with a wallet.
Really? This must be a joke. Otherwise, those must be some fucking fantastic hallucinogenic drugs you're on. If we learned nothing else from the healthcare debate, it's that we cannot rely on "moderate" or "Blue Dog" Democrats to fight to preserve either our rights or a sane governmental policy model. Moderate, pro-life, and Blue Dog Democrats are a fiction.
You cannot have a European-style government without European-style taxation.
I hate to say, "I told you so," but fuck that, no I don't. This is precisely the type of disastrous consequences that result from electing a liberal ideologue like Obama and handing him a majority in the House and the Senate.
American voters, you reap what you sow. November cannot come soon enough for you stupid fucks to correct your mistakes from 2008. Thankfully, it will come.
billymeade said: finally we figure out how Obama plans to pay for his takeover of nearly all of the private sector: The Value-Added Tax!
What an imaginative reading of that article. Every statement by Obama or his spokesmen indicate that the VAT is not being proposed. Even adviser Paul Volcker only suggested that 'a value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it had been in the past.'
For the record, I oppose the VAT. What we need to do is return the tax schedule to Eisenhower era rates, adjusted for inflation, of course.
Oh, please. When a politician refuses to rule out something rumored for months and which is directly in his ideological wheelhouse, it doesn't take much to read between the lines.
That's a good point, Sdan. If a sweeping ideological governmental shift doesn't occur overnight, that means it's not occurring...it cannot possibly be an end sought over time through marginal shifts. That would be unpossible.
Also, FWIW, this is a transcript from MSNBC earlier this week, wherein Austan Goolsbee, a member of Hopey McChangeypants' Council of Economic Advisors, refused to rule out a VAT six times:
MARK HALPERIN: Will the President ever consider tax reform that will involve a VAT? Would he ever consider it?
(Refusal #1) GOOLSBEE: Look, we are not, the report — and I’m not sure where it came from cause it’s not anything I saw — was that they were contemplating a VAT, that is not true. We have stood up this bipartisan fiscal commission, which as I understand it is considering a whole bunch of things.
HALPERIN: But would he ever consider..
(Refusal #2) GOOLSBEE: He’s going to consider whatever comes out of that fiscal commission.
HALPERIN: So if they recommend a VAT, he would consider it?
(Refusal #3) GOOLSBEE: I’m not going to get into a linguistic game about it.
HALPERIN: Well it’s not a linguistic game.
(Refusal #4) GOOLSBEE: He’s looking to see what comes out of the fiscal commission. He’s going to look at it.
HALPERIN: We had a President for eight years who said ‘no new taxes, we’re not going to raise taxes’. This President said ‘no taxes on the middle class’. Arguably there are taxes in the healthcare bill that will hit the middle class. So again, a VAT would be a big change in America. Would he consider it, if the commission recommends it, would he consider it?
(Refusal #5) GOOLSBEE: As you know, the President cut taxes for 95 percent of the workers in the stimulus. Many many billions of dollars. The President is committed to this bipartisan fiscal commission process and he’s going to seriously consider all the things that they put forward and he’s going to look at them. It doesn’t mean he’s supporting a VAT. We haven’t even contemplated a VAT.
HALPERIN: But if they recommend it, it’s not something he’d rule out?
(Refusal #6) GOOLSBEE: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical thing about it. He’s committed to a bipartisan fiscal commission.
LoveMonkey said: What an imaginative reading of that article
That article, perhaps. But, there hasn't been talk of a VAT over here in forever, and suddenly the President (and Nancy "Cunt" Pelosi) are talking about it? They're definitely planting the seeds.
Haha. I just noticed the filter makes Goolsbee's 4th refusal pretty funny. I thought the only time one could say "fuck" on PMSNBC was when Olbermann paranoidly rants about "teabaggers" but looks like I was wrong.
The Dude said: That's a good point, Sdan. If a sweeping ideological governmental shift doesn't occur overnight, that means it's not occurring...it cannot possibly be an end sought over time through marginal shifts. That would be unpossible.
I agree, attributing statements to people who haven't expressed them is awesome. "European-style government" was a non sequitur that added nothing to your argument, unless European-style just means liberal to you.
Alright, since you didn't like my non-non sequitur, you're going to really hate my actual ad hominem:
You're an idiot.
A non sequitur is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. If you don't think taking giant steps to fundamentally increase the control of government over the financial industry through bailouts, over the automobile industry through bailouts and a government takeover, as in actual ownership of GM, over the student loan industry, and over the healthcare industry, along with increasing taxes generally and the impending push to implement the VAT doesn't qualify as moving towards a European-style government, well, you simply do not understand what a European-style government is.
The premises are empirically occurring: do not pay attention to the fucking news, man? Any of it? Even the "good" kind on MSNBC or in the Washington Post/NYT?
Bill Clinton was and is a liberal. Barack Obama is a European-style socialist, a liberal ideologue, not merely a liberal.
Now, since I never said we have a European-style government, only that you cannot have one without European-style taxation, and since, in my estimation, Barack wants and is actively pushing towards a European-style government, he must necessarily implement European-style taxation.
Not only did none of my comments constitute a non sequitur, rather they merely described what is happening, present tense, not past, as it's an ongoing process.
Nevertheless, you still said this:
Sdan said: I hate this European-style government we have now.
Now who is
Sdan said: attributing statements to people who haven't expressed them
? Twas not me. But if we're looking for something that does nothing for one of our arguments, we should begin your snark.
The Dude said: Alright, since you didn't like my non-non sequitur, you're going to really hate my actual ad hominem:
You're an idiot.
Wow. Not only did you resort to an ad hominem, but you even acknowledged it beforehand. Seriously, who does that?
I know what a fucking non sequitur is, thanks. You went from "moderate Democrats are a fiction" to the now-famous European-style line without any transition. It did not follow. Not your best work.
The Dude said: The premises are empirically occurring: do not pay attention to the fucking news, man? Any of it? Even the "good" kind on MSNBC or in the Washington Post/NYT?
Here you wander off the deep end, making shit up about a person you barely know.
The Dude said: Now who is
Sdan said: attributing statements to people who haven't expressed them
?
You, for one. I quoted it; perhaps you saw.
The Dude said: But if we're looking for something that does nothing for one of our arguments, we should begin your snark.
All right, let's begin my snark. I don't claim to be funny, but it was transparently a joke based on a comic misinterpretation of the phrase "European-style government." But I now sincerely regret my attempt at humor; you have sucked all the fun out of it.
Sdan said: Not only did you resort to an ad hominem, but you even acknowledged it beforehand. Seriously, who does that?
I have to get something out of 5 years wasted on Latin...but seriously, FWIW, I apologize for the first two sentences in my previous post. It was uncalled for; it was wrong, and you did not deserve that. I regret it.
Sdan said:You went from "moderate Democrats are a fiction" to the now-famous European-style line without any transition. It did not follow.
It didn't follow because they weren't interrelated points. One comment concluded the first paragraph and was opinion. The next comment was a completely separate (and accurate) observation. There was no transition because it wasn't some fancy modus ponens shit, i.e., it wasn't an argument. A non argument or non inference cannot be a non sequitur.
Sdan said: Here you wander off the deep end, making shit up about a person you barely know.
How is asking a(n admittedly loaded) question making something up? It sounds to me, through implication via your "joke" and the comment about how "European-style" must only mean "liberal" to me, like you're denying that we're moving in that direction, i.e., that we're not moving towards Europe, but rather just becoming more liberal. I believe the opposite to be empirically obvious. We can disagree about whether that's a good or bad thing but I don't think the direction, towards Europeanization, our fearless leader is taking us, or at least trying to, is really up for dispute. We are often reminded by those on the (American) left who fear the words "socialism" and "socialist" and "communism" and "communist" that liberal does not equate to those things. I concur. Nevertheless, I think it's clear, as evidenced within my last post, on which I could expound, that the Hopey Changer and many of his policies exist ideologically and tangentially not nearest classical American liberalism but rather closer to European socialism.
Sdan said: You, for one. I quoted it; perhaps you saw.
Yes, you quoted me, but I see that quote as the clear implication of your "joke." It's the same as when Obama mockingly talked about how the sky didn't fall and the world didn't end immediately after he signed Obamacare into law, as if that's what the critics meant would happen when they said the law's effects would be disastrous. The implication being, if it's not happening right now or hasn't already happened, the warnings or criticisms are illegitimate. Wrong.
Right. We need Real True American™ taxation. I say we return to the taxation of the good old days, when Eisenhower was the president, blacks couldn't vote, and women knew their place. Here's the tax schedule from 1954:
Income level (1954)
Tax rate
Income level (inflation adjusted to 2008)
up to $2,000.00
20%
up to $37,500.00
$2,000.01 - $4,000.00
22%
$37,500 - 75,000
$4,000.01 - $6,000.00
26%
$75,000 - 112,500
$6,000.01 - $8,000.00
30%
$112,500 - 150,000
$8,000.01 - $10,000.00
34%
$150,000 - 187,500
$10,000.01 - $12,000.00
38%
$187,500 - 225,000
$12,000.01 - $14,000.00
43%
$225,000 - 262,500
$14,000.01 - $16,000.00
47%
$262,500 - 300,000
$16,000.01 - $18,000.00
50%
$300,000 - 337,500
$18,000.01 - $20,000.00
53%
$337,500 - 375,000
$20,000.01 - $22,000.00
56%
$375,000 - 412,500
$22,000.01 - $26,000.00
59%
$412,500 - 487,500
$26,000.01 - $32,000.00
62%
$487,500 - 600,000
$32,000.01 - $38,000.00
65%
$600,000 - 712,500
$38,000.01 - $44,000.00
69%
$712,500 - 825,000
$44,000.01 - $50,000.00
72%
$825,000 - 937,500
$50,000.01 - $60,000.00
75%
$937,500 - 1,125,000
$60,000.01 - $70,000.00
78%
$1,125,000 - 1,312,500
$70,000.01 - $80,000.00
81%
$1,312,500 - 1,500,000
$80,000.01 - $90,000.00
84%
$1,500,000 - $1,687,500
$90,000.01 - $100,000.00
87%
$1,687,500 - $1,875,000
$100,000.01 - $150,000.00
89%
$1,875,000 - $2,812,500
$150,000.01 - $ 200,000.00
90%
$2,812,500 - $3,750,000
$200,000.01 or more
91%
$3,750,000 or more
Only an godless anti-American cryptofascist could oppose it.
The current Wall Street reform is full of silly ideas.
It basically tells large financial institutions "Dude, it's cool if you fail, we got your back!" The bailout mentality has to stop. It only encourages risk. On the flipside, a company deemed "too big to fail" will just spin off some subsidiaries until it's "just big enough to not be regulated".
Tread carefully, Congress (I know you read this)! Bah, who am I kidding. Viva Citi.
I know there's a right-wing conspiracy against Chicago, but two Illinois Democratic senators want to call in the National Guard to help quell the violence in Obama's organized community.
Christ - not Obama-related, but "Bailout-mania" strikes again - Cleveland councilman Zack "Legomaniac" Reed wants a bailout for laid off teachers. The slope gets a little more slippery every day!
billymeade said: It basically tells large financial institutions "Dude, it's cool if you fail, we got your back!" The bailout mentality has to stop.
That's what Luntz told McConnell to say. It happens to be false. The proposed bill has no provision for a bailout; it compels bankruptcy and the shareholders lose their investment. The banks themselves would be taxed to build the fund to pay for the supervision.
The bill still fails to make serious financial crimes a capital offense.
LoveMonkey said: That's what the fuck Luntz told McConnell to say. It happens to be false. The proposed bill has no provision for a bailout;
"Allows FDIC to borrow from the Treasury only for working capital that it expects to be repaid from the assets of the company being liquidated."
I'm no Treasury expert, where does their cash-flow come from?
Even weirder is when a large bank uses the bailout fund, they are exempt from taxes, losing any assets, and any criminal charges. If I was a bank, I'd get into that program immediately and take my sweet time paying it back.
I guess it also in a way says "Dudes! Chill out! Go ahead and start selling those shit-ass mortgages again - as long as it doesn't dent you over $50 billion, we've got ya covered! What? Consumers? No, they still get fucked."
The more I think about it (granted my brain sucks), it doesn't make any sense at all. I'm bailing out myself? So basically it's just a giant savings account. Meh.
LoveMonkey said: That's what the fuck Luntz told McConnell to say. It happens to be false. The proposed bill has no provision for a bailout; it compels bankruptcy and the shareholders lose their investment. The banks themselves would be taxed to build the fund to pay for the supervision.
That's what Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and the DNC talking point emails tell LoveMonkey to say. It happens to be false.
If the bill were simply aimed at for putting insolvent firms into bankruptcy, then the government wouldn't need new powers for loan guarantees and liquidity facilities. But in the bill, we find new powers for loan guarantees and liquidity facilities. These new powers would allow the banks to borrow at reduced rates, with their creditors secure in the knowledge that the government would step in if the market tanked. Opps! If those new powers aren't for bailing out distressed creditors, then what are they there for?
And LoveMonkey's statement that "the banks themselves would be taxed to build the fund to pay for the supervision." isn't accurate either: Those "taxes" aren't actually taxes, they're "fees" and these "fees" are treated under the bill as tax-deductible business expenses, meaning that money spent on them means tax dollars not going into the Treasury, i.e. they are actually an expense to the goverment.
Also, it's pretty rich that most of the assholes who voted for the bailouts are the same ones who are now lying to us saying that they're putting an end to them when they're doing no such thing.
Shouldn't you take Bush's cock out of your mouth before you lament Bush's bailouts?
Please note that when I said, "That's what Luntz told McConnell to say," I meant it quite literally. You can read Luntz's memo on how to lie about financial reform. On the other hand, I don't watch Maddow or Olbermann, and I don't get DNC talking point emails, so I cannot comment on them.
Please forgive me for saying tax instead of fee, but nonetheless it is the banks that pay into the fund.
The Dude said: These new powers would allow the banks to borrow at reduced rates, with their creditors obsecure in the knowledge that the government would step in if the market tanked.
Well, yes, Captain Obvious, it is creditors who get paid off after bankruptcies. It is the bank that won't survive and its shareholders who lose.
We can't allow a very tiny number of greedy psychopaths to put our economy at risk.
Anyways - neither of you can honestly believe this would meaningfully change anything. Take the credit card reform stuff - the companies just find a way around everything, I don't see that changing. Same with health care, same with cap n' trade, same with corporate personhood... it's all just moving the pieces around.
Also - LoveMonkey, every economy has been in the hands of greedy psychopaths since Jesus was turned over for 30 pieces of silver (and probably way before, but not more than 4000 years before). Don't waste your fingersweat on it.
LoveMonkey said: Shouldn't you take Bush's cock out of your mouth before you lament Bush's bailouts?
I'll get right on that. I suggest you extricate Maureen Dowd's strapon from yours.
You may not watch Maddow or Olbermann (yeah, right) but it doesn't matter, the talking points are recycled through the lying, dishonest, disingenuous Democratic machine such that you repeat the same bullshit on this issue and regurgitate the same tired logic. It's laughable that you assail Frank Luntz for attempting to make people honest about the language in the bill when you refuse to be.
Whether it's calling fees "taxes," which they most certainly are not, and I noticed you glossed right over that distinction as if it were of no consequence, or denying that this is a bailout bill, you've showing no intellectual honesty.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but when you can't wrap your intellect around it or, at least, won't be honest about it, apparently you need the Captain to explain it, thusly:
The government shouldn't be in the business of lending, period, but in this context, the government should not be in the business of lending to struggling or potentially insolvent banks. The money they are lending is OUR money, as the government has none of its own. It only has what it usurps from us. Any government lending, perhaps per se, but certainly to a struggling or potentially insolvent firm IS A FUCKING BAILOUT.
Additionally, the tax/fee distinction is an important one. By making these fees tax deductible, the government is taking funds out of the Treasury that would otherwise be there were this bill to never pass. Even if the fees are paid by the banks, it is money that would otherwise be legitimately taxed and used for federal purposes, such as the national defense. By making these fees tax-deductible, not only are these fees absolutely nothing close to resembling a "tax," but the bill will also reduce the tax revenue raised, increase the tax burden on the rest of us, because you know damn well that the government will not attempt to get by on less, and will result in raising taxes on the rest of us to make up for it. Even assuming that last bit about raising taxes on the rest of us is presumptive or premature, the fact that the fees are tax deductible and will reduce tax revenues that would otherwise be there for the express purpose of funding bank failures...THAT IS A FUCKING BAILOUT.
LoveMonkey said: We can't allow a very tiny number of greedy psychopaths to put our economy at risk.
That's right, which is why November cannot come soon enough so we can vote Dodd/Reid and as many of these sychophants as possible along with their invidious policy model out of office and save our economy, our democracy, and the Republic itself from their misguided, destructive stupidity.
The Dude said: The government shouldn't be in the business of lending
Bullshit. That's anti-American Randian Shitthink™ The government should be in the business of establishing justice and promoting the general welfare, and that means running a central bank, loaning money, and regulating trade.
LoveMonkey crapped through his keyboard: Bullshit. That's anti-American Randian Shitthink™ The government should be in the business of ... running a central bank, loaning money, and regulating trade.
See, Sdan, we're not talking about classical American liberals; the moderately respectable Democratic party of JFK has been hijacked by anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-free market, anti-capitalist Eurosocialist fascists who don't know what "establishing justice" or "promoting the general Welfare" mean in the US Constitutional sense. Only the last of LoveMonkey's list has any legitimacy, and even then, it has clear limits (which the Eurosocialist "American" fascists loathe and show no respect).
Ha ha, someone here is lifting direct quotes off of marching order websites and presenting it as his own independent thought. Ironic when in the same breath, he's attempting to paint others as being told what to say. Classy.
And Billy (no, you're not the blatant plagiarist), I do need to make a trip to Cleveland, and you need to stop by my neighborhood (hopefully your car has bulletproof windows) next time you're in Elgin looking at Scottish chicks.
It was me, but mrpicklesdad isn't as clever as he thinks he is. My initial post #178 above had a sentence with a link at the end of the first paragraph with respect to what he is referring. That was the last portion of the post I wrote because I had to get the html down for the link (I suck at html). It pointed out how LoveMonkey's talking points were the exact same as Joan Walsh's (and Maddow's and Olbermann's and Dodd's, etc.) and how Kevin Williamson's response to Joan Walsh could have been directed towards any of them since their comments were indistinguishable. I didn't quote him directly because I had included the link and the whole point was that, with only minor tweaks, and which was pointed out in the lost sentence, that Williamson could have been speaking directly to LoveMonkey, who was merely parroting the talking points of others. I thought it actually strengthened the point by resorting to the same technique but with a substantive reply. I'm not known to speak of "loan guarantees and liquidity facilities." Regretably, I had copied and pasted the previous, incomplete version and re-loaded before posting because I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed a reply. I often do so to avoid multiple posts, which is why my posts end up often being so long and have the occasional typo or extraneous word - I'm a compulsory editor but you miss shit from time to time when you re-read the same sentence 10 times and where it goes through multiple versions in the process. I didn't realize it until mrpicklesdad posted that I had not updated my copy/paste before reloading the page and posting my reply - I thought I had. There was no intent to withhold the original or the link since it spoke directly to LoveMonkey and the point was since he's merely parroting talking points, I can to.
Ha, that's a cute story. So you took the time to lift Kevin Williamson's verbage, change a couple words keeping his ideas virtually unchanged, embed it in your own verbage including addressing LoveMonkey directly, but conveniently forgot to give Williamson credit for you saying what he said? I don't know what's more ridiculous, that you tried to pass off his thoughts as your own or that you're trying to backpeddle and make up some story about wanting to show that you can parrot talking points too. Either way, it's pathetic, you're actually better than that.
mrpicklesdad said: So you took the time to lift Kevin Williamson's verbage, change a couple words keeping his ideas virtually unchanged, embed it in your own verbage including addressing LoveMonkey, Praise Be Upon Him, directly,
Yes, as I explained, that was the whole point because
The Dude said: Williamson could have been speaking directly to LoveMonkey, Praise Be Upon Him, who was merely parroting the talking points of others.
It was supposed to be ironic. Unfortunately, I fucked up. It was not meant to be mistaken for my verbiage, since had I not fucked up the copy/reload/paste, it would have been wholly transparent.
mrpicklesdad said: but conveniently forgot to give Williamson credit for you saying what the fuck he said?
That word does not mean what you think it means. As explained, I did not forget, and I corrected the mistake by providing the source material as soon as you pointed out the error. It was not merely to show that I can resort to using talking points, but that I was
The Dude said: resorting to the same technique but with a substantive reply.
Nevertheless, believe what you want. I always link to my sources. This time I fucked up. It happens.
I'm too infernally busy at work to contribute a thoughtful reply to this thread, so I'll just comment that I like Billy's use of the word "fingersweat."
8/31/2005: 1 day after Katrina makes landfall, President Bush begins organizing a task force to help out in NOLA. The media has a heart attack.
4/30/2010: 9 days after a deadly oil disaster and currently on pace to be the biggest environmental disaster in history, Obama has yet to make a single public statement about it. The media is overjoyed.
LoveMonkey said: My router's Shitthink™ filter blocks the Reverend Moon's Washington Times. Can you tell me what the deuce in that rag animated you?
Nothing - I summarized it after the hyperlink. That was just the first link that came up in Google News. Sorry, I should be more cognizant of your reading ability.
Almost... it's for sale. But what is for sale really? A building, a name, some printing presses, an archive of bullshit, some corrupted journalists, and a subscriber list of the dumbest sad sacks in the US of A.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way home today. First, he was defending himself, saying that, last week, he was not implying that President Obama orchestrated the oil spill in the gulf. He then went on to say that he finds it "suspicious" that he sent a SWAT team there, and that it is too convenient that Haliburton was involved in the construction of the oil rig.
Bottom line? Rush Limbaugh is implying that President Obama orchestrated the oil spill in the gulf.
Just when you thought the lunatic fringe couldn't get any lunaticier . . .
stim said: I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way home today. First, he was defending himself, saying that, last week, he was not implying that President Obama orchestrated the oil spill in the gulf. He then went on to say that he finds it "suspicious" that he sent a SWAT team there, and that it is too convenient that Haliburton was involved in the construction of the oil rig.
Bottom line? Rush Limbaugh is implying that President Obama orchestrated the oil spill in the gulf.
Sdan, Sdan! We found that non-sequitur you were looking for!
LoveMonkey said: Obama is arguing that visitor logs are exempt records.
Really, with all the material the Hopey Changer is providing, that's the best you can come up with to complain about?
That's the equivalent of whining that the rapist who just broke into your house in the middle of the night, has you pinned to the ground with a knife to your throat, is extinguishing his Menthols out on your junk and is balls deep in your pooper didn't have the decency to shower before stopping by.
I mean, sure, it's rude, but, as with Hopey McChangeypants, it's really the least of your concerns.
The Dude said: That's the equivalent of whining that the rapist who just broke into your house in the middle of the night, has you pinned to the ground with a knife to your throat, is extinguishing his Menthols out on your junk and is balls deep in your pooper didn't have the decency to shower before stopping by.
I love that (right and left) we have to find "fault" with everything. The oil spill was a fucking accident - no amount of regulation or procedure or ball-licking can stop freak accidents.
Rush was a little unhinged yesterday, I had to turn it off, he was bordering on Glenn Beck lunatic territory.
Ridiculous. Nobody seemed to care 2 weeks ago, or a year ago, or 3 years ago. Typical political bandwagon-hopping.
It also bugs me that pundits (ugh) are saying this will derail Obama's drilling plans - poppycock! One accident does not mean every single oil rig will capsize! We might as well stop driving because people die every day on the highway. 21st Century Knee-jerk America is annoying.
billymeade said: You're attacking LoveMonkey for agreeing with you that Obama is not all that he seems?
Should we really be crediting him with acknowledging that which is blatantly obvious to anyone who's paying the slightest bit of attention? In other news, water is wet.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Hopey that do not double as backhanded complaints about Bush (and which the LoveMonkster will not acknowledge). Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well!
The Dude said: Should we really be crediting him with acknowledging that which is blatantly obvious to anyone who's paying the slightest bit of attention? In other news, water is wet.
Yep! The point of this thread is to monitor Obama's missteps (and occasionally highlight an accomplishment), and more importantly, to point out the media's bias towards him (as compared to Bush), no matter how mundane or obvious.
April 2008: Obama freaks out that unemployment hits an astronomical 5.1%. "This bad news is just the latest evidence that Washington needs fundamental change because it has failed the American people."
November 2009: Change!
May 2010: Obama announces that the unemployment rate rising to 9.9% is "very encouraging". To the food-stamp printers, perhaps.
CT Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal (D) is a big fat liar, claiming on at least 13 occasions that he served in Vietnam (which he did not). This opens door for Linda McMahon (R) to lay the smackdown on his candy ass.
Slightly off-kilter - this article is completely ridiculous: Obama is using a fake SSN! WND goes on to claim not only is he using a SNN fraudulently, but he stole it from a dead guy!
Just reading the first half, I found about 17 factual errors, and I'm still not sure what they're getting at. Is Obama a fake human? Maybe he's a reptoid.
The media is finally turning on Obama over his handling of the Gulf oil spill situation. It's about time, though not nearly as fierce as the Bush/Katrina backlash (granted, that had more immediate effect on human life).
Over a month has passed and Dear Leader has done little more than give a carefully worded statement about his concern. I hope people don't forget this come November 2012... His lack of experience for any type of crisis is glaring (see unemployment skyrocketing, see economic crisis worsening, see Afghanistan out of control, see quintupling of the deficit).
I promised myself I'd stay away from this, but I found it particularly amusing that over the weekend one conservative hero said Obama was unAmerican for having his foot on the neck of BP, another conservative hero said that he wasn't doing anything because he was in bed with BP. Hmmm, maybe BP is in his bed while he has his foot on its neck? Or Paul just wanted to say "unAmerican" to give the birthers a big Boehner. At least the two could agree that it's totally cool in 2010 to tell a restaurant that they can deny service to someone based on the color of their skin. Glad they're lockstep there (but not racist!!!).
So since the conservatives are tripping over themselves on what angle to take on blaming Obama (never waste a good crisis). What is your opinion on how it should be handled? What would you do? Is Palin right or is Paul right? Or better yet, how can it be spun to say they're both right? And I thought talking about Bush was unacceptable? It should be pretty easy to see the irony of 8 years of complaining that people blame Bush for everything, then this.
mrpicklesdad said: At least the two could agree that it's totally cool in 2010 to tell a restaurant that they can deny service to someone based on the color of their skin.
A complete distortion of Paul's statements. Nonetheless, he should know better than to even bring up race, which only liberals are allowed to have an opinion on.
mrpicklesdad said: What is your opinion on how it should be handled?
My opinion is he should not accept whatever explanations BP is giving him in their daily briefings. The spill is obviously too much for BP to handle, and it's legally Obama's responsibility to take over and fix this shit.
mrpicklesdad said: It should be pretty easy to see the irony of 8 years of complaining that people blame Bush for everything, then this.
Yeah, it's almost as easy as it is to see the irony where certain people never complained when liberals blamed Bush for everygoddamnthing but then whine about it when Obama's criticized the tiniest bit, especially while trying (and failing) to flip the "never waste a good crisis" line and completely misrepresenting someone's words to again call those he disagrees with racist. SSDD.
Also, any member of the Bush or Obama administrations that waived or overlooked any safety or environmental regulations should face criminal charges. (I'm looking at you, Dick Cheney).
Our government should be prepared to nationalize BP.
LoveMonkey said: Also, any member of the Bush or Obama administrations that waived or overlooked any safety or environmental regulations should face criminal charges. (I'm looking at you, Dick Cheney).
Let's keep a close eye on Spain's economy, which Obama wants to emulate - after all, they have Cap & Trade! And high-speed rail! And wondrous and plentiful social welfare. Yay.
mrpicklesdad said: So since the conservatives are tripping over themselves on what angle to take on blaming Obama (never waste a good crisis).
The Dude: while trying (and failing) to flip the "never waste a good crisis" line
LoveMonkey said: Also, any member of the Bush or Obama administrations that waived or overlooked any safety or environmental regulations should face criminal charges. (I'm looking at you, Dick Cheney).
Our government should be prepared to nationalize BP.
As. If. On. Queue!
Now that's how it's done, mrpicklesdad. Criticizing the opposition when they perform poorly is kinda, sorta what politics is all about. But capitalizing on sensational headlines to advance a poorly-reasoned, poorly-constructed, ideological agenda that has nothing to do with the unfortunate circumstances is where the real value in a crisis lies. The masters of this practice reside on the left.
From the Nobel Peace Prize committee last year: "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason"
I cannot wait until Maui Mike there finds out that BTUs are British Thermal Units. And that the Queen of England still has to pay the Kennedy family $1 for every bottle of Scotch shipped into the US. Need I say more?
Here's the full text of Obama's speech to the nation about the BP Oil Spill, if you care.
Here's some highlights:* Obama's been on this since DAY ONE, yet met with BP for the first time today.* He's kind enough to use this as an excuse to raise our taxes (yay!)* The tens of thousands of people who work in the oil industry are going to get work as window installers * There's a moratorium on new drilling - new, better, more advanced drilling... but the old, barely-checked platforms can drill away *We're running out of places to drill oil. There's no such place as Alaska.
My favorite line: "We cannot consign our children to this future."
I almost threw a hammer through my new Sony Bravia. This is the asshole that's consistently signed legislation that has assfucked every child born between now and 2525. But if we build enough windmills and install more windows, we'll be okay!
I'm eagerly awaiting our conversion to a window-installing society.
Obama's $75 billion mortgage plan has modified 121,000 mortgages. It has reduced the principle in 121 of those. That's 0.1%
Think about that. SEVENTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS to help 121 homeowners. Those must be some awesome houses.
I'll ask the question I ask once a month here: Is there anything this Administration has NOT fucked up? I almost* feel bad for the guy, not even 2 years in and he's made almost every facet of America worse. Normally I wouldn't blame the Pres for every problem, but he's the one on TV claiming responsibility for everything, so whatever.
Years ago I remember working with a bright young programmer named Billy Meade. What ever happened to him? Neurosyphilis is doubly tragic because it is preventable in this day and age. As to mortgage modifications... The primary purpose of a modification isn't to reduce the principal. When I got a modification on my mortgage I was able to reduce the total number of payments by reducing the interest rate.
medusa said: Years ago I remember working with a bright young programmer named Billy Meade.
That programmer exchanged a vibrant soul to become just another squeaking and shrewish (but reliably compliant) cog in the machine. A programmer whose every day is nothing but another bite of the shit sandwich. A programmer whose days are spent alternately filling the boss's bags with bread and searching the internets for more and more exotic porn. A programmer whose stinging existence is relieved only by incessant and relentless masturbation.
. . . Oh wait. That's the jaded bitch, Medusa, herself. In the old days she could misplace $250 million and not bat an eye.
The bright young programmer named Billy Meade is doing fine with a sexy new job, a family, and a flourishing karaoke act. Well, he's doing fine except having his identity stolen by the cranky old man who sometimes posts senile rants on the threads.
medusa said: As to mortgage modifications... The primary purpose of a modification isn't to reduce the principal. When I got a modification on my mortgage I was able to reduce the total number of payments by reducing the interest rate.
A poor black man attempting to make his life better through hard work and determination?? "NOT IN OUR PARTY", say Democrats! "We'll investigate this to the fullest, clearly this can't be right."
Southern StrategyTM indeed.
Also, leave it to Jesse Jackson to compare Cleveland's annoyance at uber-billionaire Lebron James to slavery. Keep fucking that chicken, Jesse.
billymeade said: Republicans: "Great idea! We even came up with a way to pay for it! Let's go vote!"
I'd be impressed with the Republican's new-found concern for deficits if I didn't know it was a sham calculated to hurt America. Why couldn't the Republicans come up with a way to pay for Bush's crippling tax cut for the wealthy? Why do they want to extend Bush's crippling tax cuts for the wealthy without paying for them?
Even FOX News knows they're full of shit. Here's Republican Senator Jon Kyl trying to run out the clock without answering for the Republican wickedness:
billymeade said: The Republicans want to pay for the unemployment benefits via stimulus money.
No, they want to perpetuate the economic crisis.
billymeade said: The Democrats want to pay for the unemployment benefits via their magical money printing machine.
That must be the same machine that paid for the fatcat tax cut.
billymeade said: The Republicans want to extend the tax cuts because no sane rich businessman will hire anybody knowing his taxes are about to jump up.
Is Joe the Plumber giving you business advice again? The sane rich businessman knows he's taxed after expenses.
billymeade said: The Democrats want to end the "wicked" tax cuts because it will sate their base's jealousy towards any successful non-celebrity.
Bumlicking doesn't become you.
In no other country do people genuinely love their bosses the way Americans do. They'll go home after 12 hard hours of capricious superiors peeing in their faces, and the very first thing they'll do is call up some talk radio show and denounce the graduated income tax that gives them a break at their bosses' expense. --MattTaibbi, The Steinbrenner Slobituary
The idea that tax cuts need to be "paid for" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That's flipping the while tax/spend issue on its head. If one were to fault Republicans for not cutting spending to offset tax cuts (of course, this would ignore the fact that tax revenues often increase with tax cuts, and, in fact, they did over time with the Bush tax cuts), then one would at least be intellectually honest and not just a blustering liberal cheerleader. But to claim that tax cuts need to be "paid for" (by what? by other taxes, duh!) Is nonsense.
Ugh, so I see The Dude has cleverly fallen into LoveMonkey's "change the subject" routine.
Anyways, the Dems should quit bitching about not extending unemployment benefits when they had the full power to pass it long before they took their summer vacation. It's not like it's a surprise that unemployment keeps rising.
It's a brilliant tactic by the Democrat Party, to paint the GOP as being the reason they've accomplished jackshit, even though they have basically carte blanche to pass laws as they please.
LoveMonkey said: No, they want to perpetuate the economic crisis.
That's contrary to everything you've previously written about Republicans. You think they want more people on welfare? You think they want stocks to plummet further? You think they want more government control over the private sector? I guess I've been reading your posts backwards.
LoveMonkey said: What! Are you going to change the topic just when we were expecting the Dude to present a long winded, rambling defense of voodoo economics?
The invidious and jealous liberal War on Classes, Prosperity and America Itself needs to stop. The perpetual and perhaps irreversible damage it's doing to our country whilst Captain Kickass fiddles away and flies Bo around the country on his own personal jet exposes the true nature of their aversion to American exceptionalism.
White House uses distorted facts and video to force a USDA employee out of her job. Way to go, Obama! Keep on practicing that knee-jerk approach to leadership.
You guys are on to something here. Breitbart is a schmuck; at best, he ran the videos without doing his due diligence and that's unacceptable; at worse, he had a hand in editing them and that's not only unacceptable, but also reprehensible and stupid. And it's not as if the unedited video exactly paints Shirley Sherrod in a positive light anyways, so airing the edited video wasn't even necessary. If he keeps this up, soon Breitbart will have about as much credibility as the mainstream media...
There's nothing more the media loves talking about than itself.
Ever since FauxSnoozeTMcalled won the 2000 election for Bush, it seems all political discussion in the US boils down to what the source of your info is, which kinda sucks because there may be legit journalists on both sides who aren't just trying to get more website hits.
The political threads on here and other messageboards only enhance that - you can't go more than 3 posts without someone denigrating one source of news, acting as if there were one definitive place for true information (other than billymeade.com).
It's almost become another sport in a way - instead of "Yankees suck!" or "Red Sox suck!" it's "The Daily Caller sucks!' or "The HuffPo sucks!" If we're unwilling to even budge an inch, than the discussion becomes as hollow and useless as sports talk radio.
I'm certain news coverage has always had bias (as every human does), but it's obviously much more pronounced now that anybody can become a "source".
Another bone to pick: It doesn't make sense to call left-leaning news "the mainstream media" when FauxSnooseTM, Drudge, the Glenn Beck show, and Rush Limbaugh have a larger audience than all other news sources combined. The left may yell louder, but the right is reaching more ears.
The Daily Caller had a good start, but tried so hard to be the Anti-HuffingtonPost that it got annoying really quick.
The HuffingtonPost is incredibly annoying because they try to be outrageous with EVERY headline by capitalizing any SCANDALOUS word.
Also, what happened to MSNBC.com??? They added so many doo-dads that I can barely read an article anymore.
All Daily Caller's "scandal" is going to do is destroy Journolist as it stands now, and create two separate mailing lists for journalists, depending on your bias (which probably already exist). So the scandal is non-existent, and the result is not helpful to anyone. Hooray!
Sdan said: My problem with the Daily Caller is, e.g., they say "liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News" when that's not what happened.
Haha. Yeah, when the person saying it didn't happen is Ezra Klein, you gotta take his protestations with a few grains (or handfuls) of salt. I notice he doesn't mention this comment in his response:
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”
Hmm...I wonder what that tough legal framework would look like if Mr. Davies had his way? Not really, I think we all have a pretty good idea what such a framework would look like. In any event, such a "tough legal framework" would be the government, i.e., courts, ruling on what is legitimate despite Ezra Klein's insistance that the only comment on point was that of a law professor.
Ezra Klein is right about one thing: there is a problem with cherry-picking comments or quotes as context is important. Were their more comments on the listserve similar to the one above and the one that Klein attempts to refute? The only way to be sure would be for The Daily Caller or for Ezra Klein to release the full listserve email archives.
billymeade said: Another bone to pick: It doesn't make sense to call left-leaning news "the mainstream media"
This is wide of the mark and thereby misses the point. That characterization flips the issue on its head. The point is not to label "left-leaning news" as "the mainstream media." The point is that so much of the mainstream media consists of, in fact, left-leaning individuals such that their bias cannot be separated from their reporting. So much of reporting, from the manner in which something is covered to whether or not something is covered, can exhibit bias such that when so much of the industry is permeated by liberals with a now bare-to-see biased viewpoint, this bias, as they are openly exhibiting, is bound to be injected into their reporting - whether purposefully or not.
You're probably right, Billy, that "certain news coverage has always had bias," perhaps even all news coverage, but isn't it better that this bias be open and not hidden? So, why was the Journolist shut down and a new one created with fewer people who are presumably less likely to leak their discussions? It's all so sordid. They're just circling the wagons.
The irony of the whole situation is stark. You have a listserve of mostly similar minded individuals with obvious political bias complaining about the biases of a new organization(s) that they are ideologically pre-disposed to loathe.
"Oh, Fox News is so biased." Maybe, but the existence of and content of this listserve just shows that so are many, perhaps most, of its members, such that they openly discussed ways to undermine stories that didn't fit their agenda and openly contemplated smearing their political opponents. To whine so forcefully about another's bias while plotting to use dishonest and distasteful means to combat their bias only exposes one's own. The difference is that Fox News is one network, even if it has the most viewers. The members of the listserve permeate the rest of the media and make decisions every day about what to cover and how to cover it. It's not a conspiracy; it's just a ugly pattern that fits a particular mold. What makes it all so odious is that they seem to want to deny the existence of their own obvious biases and their effects and only see the "problem" with the biases that they disagree with. You can say a lot of things about Ezra Klein but to call him a neutral arbiter or disseminator of news is not amongst them.
The media sucks in general, and these jackoffs are unwittingly just proving this point. There is no defense for the overt discussions and efforts to politicize the news by many, most?, at least too many, former Journolist members. What this brings to light is that the widespread complaints about Fox News are equally as, if not more, applicable to the rest of the media, whether the liberals want to admit it or not. Conservative complaints about the overall media's leftist slant are now substantiated with hard evidence. Breitbart and The Daily Caller may not be the most credible sources, but they are reacting to the more institutional biases and incredibility of the mainstream media.
billymeade said: All Daily Caller's "scandal" is going to do is destroy Journolist as it stands now, and create two separate mailing lists for journalists, depending on your bias (which probably already exist).
Journolist only consisted of liberal and "moderate" journalists, and it's already been shut down. A new, more insular list has already begun.
Whoa, I hope you didn't type all that from your blackberry!
While it's true that there may be more journalists that lean left, my point was that their audience is smaller, so it doesn't really matter. If they want to get together and high-five each other over their most clever FoxNews nicknames, more power to 'em.
I'll see your Miami and Yankees and raise you a "Fuck Michigan".
Fun Foxnews nicknames: FauxNews FauxSnooze Fucks News
The Dude said: Haha. Yeah, when the person saying it didn't happen is Ezra Klein, you gotta take his protestations with a few grains (or handfuls) of salt. I notice he doesn't mention this comment in his response:
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”
Hmm...I wonder what the fuck that tough legal framework would look like if Mr. Davies had his way? Not really, I think we all have a pretty good idea what the fuck such a framework would look like. In any event, such a "tough legal framework" would be the government, i.e., courts, ruling on what the fuck is legitimate despite Ezra Klein's insistance that the only comment on point was that of a law professor.
Call me literal, but I don't see this as equivalent to "liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News."
The Dude said: Ezra Klein is right about one thing: there is a problem with cherry-picking comments or quotes as context is important. Were their more comments on the listserve similar to the one above and the one that Klein attempts to refute? The only way to be sure would be for The Daily Caller or for Ezra Klein to release the full listserve email archives.
July 24 2009 - Obama's knee-jerk reaction during SkipGateGate is a "teachable moment"
July 22 2010 - Obama's knee-jerk reaction during SherrodGate is a "teachable moment"
Sounds like Dear Leader was asleep in class.
Democrats - Making sure race still matters!
From a conspiracy standpoint - this was a brilliant move for Breitbart - days after the NAACP calls the Tea Party racists, he turns the whole thing on its head and makes the NAACP and the Administration look like fools. Underhanded, yes, but well-executed.
Democrats scrambling to repeal part of the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill... you know, the one they admittedly didn't read but that "we needed"? That one! Wait til they read the rest of it!
I meant exactly what I said: that you've told much more funny jokes. To think that all a businessman - sane or otherwise - needs to think about with regard to taxes is his after-expense income is pretty silly. Surely, that comment was a joke. And not a very funny one.
billymeade said: Wait til they read the rest of it!
They needed to pass it so that they could find out what was in it too!
The Dude said: To think that all a businessman - sane or otherwise - needs to think about with regard to taxes is his after-expense income is pretty silly.
I think he was mocking my knowledge of how each and every business is run. You must be an expert in all fields before posting to the intertubes!
Those dang racist Rethuglicants won't let a mosque be built at Ground Zero! What intolerant bastards! They hate any brownskinned non-Christians!!!
Wait, what? Obama's against it? And the most powerful Senator, "Dingy" Harry Reid (D-Nev)? My head asplode.
*** On another note... strange how Pakistan is currently in the midst of the worst natural disaster in history and there's NO telethons, NO Springsteen songs, NO Wyclef campaigns, in fact, not even our own President mentioning it??? HuffPuff and DailyKos have no text-to-donate number. Sean Penn hasn't had one photo-op yet! Even Kevin Costner hasn't offered his services. Clearly the Liberal Left hates Muslims.
