|
Quote:
:D SI |
Quote:
They're not doing it in another country. They're not doing it to get non-US citizens going. Doing it to get US citizens going which is acceptable. |
Quote:
Quote:
Come again? |
Quote:
If you take all three of my posts together you can understand what I meant. Anytime you are playing off of other US-citizens, I have no problem with that whatsoever. When you take that to citizens of another country and get them going...that's when I really start to have a problem. |
Quote:
Take what? I read all three and I have no clue what you mean/meant. |
I can't imagine the U.S. executing or imposing life (which is the penalty we're talking about with treason) on one of their own citizens for "getting people going" no matter what country they're doing it in.
That would basically be the standard for me - something that warrants execution. Like making a rougue sale of nuclear weapons to Al-Queda. |
Yeah, I'm still not getting what you're saying.
Although, my current assumption is that you're OK with lining Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck up against a wall and shooting them, so I'm fully in support of your argument! :D |
Quote:
No, we have thousands of other reasons we can use instead. Or we can just take you for no reason, just because we feel like it. |
Quote:
My point was more in what I said earlier. I haven't seen plans to fix the actual costs. I just see "let's pay for it" plans. |
To all...it makes perfect sense in my mind but I'm obviously doing a crappy job of explaining it.
|
So if Glenn Beck does his broadcast from Canada next week, he should be tried with treason when he gets back?
|
Quote:
Probably not as I'm sure he's not trying to get the Canadians fired up. |
So what did Sean Penn say to get the Venezuelans fired up that makes him deserving of execution?
|
Quote:
He said he had an ultimate set of tools to fix the US Economy. |
Some pretty sobering numbers from the CBO concerning the deficit..........
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan |
If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.
Sadly none exist. |
Quote:
I believe drunken sailors take offense to this, as they do not appreciate being compared to a major political party. Or at least that is what I heard. |
Another campaign promise heading down the drain for good. Obama plans to keep many Gitmo terrorists retained indefinitely. The ACLU along with some Obama supporters are up in arms about it.
Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely I'm in total support of the decision. The only thing that stands out is just how misinformed he was when making some of his campaign promises. |
ignore the word 'prospect' in the headline.
now bear in mind you also should read this sentence in the Foxnews article carefully: Quote:
You can throw the word 'prospect' into all kinds of sentences to accomplish your goals MBBF. BTW if he did this I'd be very much against it, but it's just so MBBF to throw loose words around as if they were the gospel. |
That energy bill sounds awesome I figure I don't spend enough on energy as it is. So maybe I can chip in a couple hundred more per year. Do we write the checks out directly to Al gore? And if there is any hope left in the republican party, they will fillibuster this nonsense as long as it takes.
|
Dola.
I know the republicans did a lot of stupid shit too. I still hate the concept of 300 page amendments going in at 3AM. And I don't necessarily have a big problem with cleaner energy but I'm not convinced this is the answer. |
I think people have shown that more and more they only respond to monetary incentives and disincentives. I see people less and less willing to use moral reasons to change their behaviors. So, if money is all people care about, then money is what you have to use to change things.
This is what happens when you spend years teaching people to misinterpret the phrase "you have the freedom to do anything in this country" with the emphasis on the wrong part of that phrase and ignoring that it also means you have to pay the consequences for your actions. SI |
Quote:
I don't think the Republicans need to do much of anything that the Democrats haven't already done to make themselves look bad in this case. At some point, filibustering isn't the best option. In the case of this bill, the Democratic made some of their middle members sell their soul to support the party at the risk of angering their supporters at home. As one of the Democrats in the House put it, those people may lose in 2010 supporting a bill that won't pass the Senate. This is why I mentioned a few months ago that Republicans were hoping that Democrats would start trying to pass through anything knowing that they had the party majority. Eventually, they make poor decisions like they have in regard to the Cap & Trade bill that is an expensive bureaucratic nightmare during a time when the #1 of the country now lists the deficit as being the main concern. It's a huge misstep and the Republicans should hammer it as such rather than bothering with a filibuster. |
speaking of hammering things....it would seem that what used to be the democrats scandal of choice has been completely monopolized by the Republicans. That's crazy considering just 5-6 years ago the Republicans were the cornerstone of the Family Values party. Just pointing out that things can swing one way or the other very quickly. Not as quickly as MBBF would like to show in some polls he dredges for but even the party in power can't become become too comfortable in charge...
|
Quote:
1. There's been plenty of democrats keeping both sides in a mess. Let's not be silly here. 2. Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican because they don't buy the family/religion angle that is brought out each and every election. It's a talking point for Democrats partisan supporters more than anything. |
1. is true its just the Dems have done a better job of getting caught lately.
2. is a ridiculous thing you put out there. The GOP LOVES being known as the party of Family Values. All of a sudden you want to compare it to the negative "connotation" like 'liberal'? Stop. please. |
Quote:
Do you have any data to support that? I can't find info on conservatives, but as recently as early June 63% of Republicans were White conservatives according to Gallup. I've never seen data that says most conservatives are not aligned with the GOP. |
Quote:
I couldn't disagree more. Most conservatives don't align with the GOP planks involving religion and family values. Most of that is right wing hypocritical bunk. Sure, as you point out, if they had to choose in a poll, they'd align with the GOP more often than not. But most don't buy into what the extreme right is selling, which unfortunately is what the GOP has decided to align with right now. The left is sailing down a similarly unsustainable stance regarding their climate change and health care bills. In theory, change in both is a great idea. But the level of utter crap in the cap and trade bill along with the union exceptions and 10M people who will have to find new insurance under the health care proposal leave them in a position where you wonder if they're bothering to think through the ramifications of their actions. Most of the moderates on both sides that put Obama in office will likely balk at these kinds of policies. |
wow, just wow.
So aside what the polls say, MBBF knows what 'most' members of XYZ really mean. Not only that, but aside what the 'data' says he knows how people 'really' feel about the policies and/or how they'll feel in the future. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. If you can provide data that shows most conservatives do not identify as Republicans I'll buy it, but until then you're just making stuff up. |
Quote:
I'll be honest. I'm not sure there's any accurate polling of it mostly having to do with the partisan nature of polling on these issues. If you have a poll, it usually identifies people by their registration. In that case, there's conservatives that aren't included as registered party members. I think that liberal partisans would love to think that people that don't vote with them match up with the planks of the Republican Party. That's simply not the case. Same thing on the other end. The truth is that there's a good 35-40% of voters that sit in the middle much like me and don't hold to a firm belief system harbored by one side or the other. How they vote may lean one way or the other based on importance, but generally those voters don't identify with one or the other. |
You're changing the argument. You started with the statement that, Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican. I still haven't seen any evidence to support that claim and changing the argument to whether or not there are independent voters leads me to believe your initial statement was wishful thinking.
|
Quote:
Not wishful thinking and certainly not an 'argument'. I'm not here to argue. Likely an overly-general statement on my part. It's a fair point, but doesn't diminish my statement. |
Quote:
If it's an over-general statement with no data to back it up, how does it not diminish your statement? Does it somehow augment it? Is this bizzaro-FOFC? |
If you make a numerical argument (most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican) but can't provide any data to support that argument it certainly does diminish your statement.
I think what you're doing here is extrapolating your beliefs to cover all conservatives. miked wins. |
Quote:
I was referring to my second statement, not the one that JPhillips cited as overly-general. |
Quote:
I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'. |
Good debate here concerning economy as long as you ignore the brutal stiff-as-a-board moderation by Zakiria.........
Krugman Debates Stimulus, Health Care With Conservative Economist John Taylor (VIDEO) |
Quote:
You're misunderstanding what I meant by win. I simply meant that miked posted the same thought earlier, hence he won by getting their first. It had nothing to do with you. The other points you mention didn't come out until after I asked for data on your statement about conservatives. I've actually been focused on your initial statement while you've been trying to change the topic because you can't provide data to support your initial claim. |
Quote:
Cap and trade concerns are valid, I think the changes will be stupid. Health care, not so much. Our current system is a disaster. I work in the field and I know it needs some drastic changes. I'm not looking for a single-payer government system, but would rather they heavily regulate insurers that run the show now. I'm not worried about Foxnews doom and gloom where they keep trying to convince me Obama is the second coming of Marx. Changing the health care system doesn't mean a bureaucrat in Washington will be perusing my medical data and making decisions. Right now, an uneducated insurance worker is doing that. In fact, Aetna has nurses calling my wife to discuss her lifestyle because she took a drug in early pregnancy to help regulate her insulin as a precaution (borderline) and was off it in 6 weeks. But you really didn't want to have an intelligent debate about health care, you wanted to do what you usually do, which is post little shards of stories from various conservative news sources, then change the topic once somebody actually engaged you. It just so happened that your topic change brought you to your next unsubstantiated argument, which you acknowledged was over-reaching and unsupported yet felt those 2 things weren't diminishing your argument, so you changed lanes once again for another passing-glance on a different issue. |
Here is a very good article (with citations!) about some of the 'myths' of healthcare in the US:
Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business |
Quote:
I'm confused. I don't disagree with a thing you've said here, yet the implication by lumping me into a group (i.e. FoxNews snipe) is that I do. I agree that the current system is a mess, though we shouldn't change it just for the sake of changing it. I agree that a single-payer system is not a good idea. I'm not worried about any scare tactics by the conservatives, but I'm certainly am concerned with the huge pricetag that comes with the bill that still likely won't come close to covering everyone. I agree with your assessment as far as who's making the decisions, but that won't change under the new health care system. The same idiots denying coverage that is needed will still be denying coverage under the new plan. If anything, that will occur more rather than less often. |
Quote:
Quote:
To me, we need to focus on reducing the cost, improving the quality and trying to strategically fill this remaining void. This can all be done within the existing system with more of a focus on covering preventive actions, reduced medical malpractice overhead, more focus on prescription drug plans, increased doctor/network flexibility within current plans (ie, many plans (like mine) no longer require referrals to see a specialist) and a study/focus on who actually isn't covered, doesn't have options and would like to be. Maybe create a tax credit to cover a person who loses their job for 8-9 months if most are recently out of work. I would rather focus on the actual issues and try to resolve them one-by-one. This national plan idea is akin to trading a body with a broken leg for one with no legs. Different does not equal better. |
Obama and Biden now appear to be facing a two-headed snake. Not only are conservatives bashing their economic policies, many Obama supporters are now hammering their policies as well.
Biden Ignores Warnings Of Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini And Others |
dola
More good points regarding how badly the economic policies of the current administration are failing and what needs to be done soon to avoid losing the next election....... Robert Kuttner: 3 Reasons We Need an Economic Wake Up Call |
So now you're posting articles giving advice that you completely disagree with just because they're in opposition to some of Obama's polices? What's the point of simply saying, "See some people disagree with Obama's policies!"
|
Quote:
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion thread. Did you institute a rule that states that we only can post articles that support our point of view? I think liberal criticisms are just as valid and worthy of discussion whether I agree with them or not. I believe you and I differ in that regard. |
But you don't discuss anything. You post articles with a comment about how damaging it is for Obama and move on. The economic criticisms you posted aren't new, the same arguments have been made since the stimulus battle. What do you want to discuss? What about the criticisms has merit or doesn't?
What is there besides, Obama is teh suk. |
Wow, MBBF has completely converted to an economic progressive. I fully welcome him to our group. I say this assuming that he has done a complete 180 on his economic beliefs and not that he simply posted about an article that he didn't even read.
|
Quote:
What part do you think I didn't read? I think it's an interesting read from the perspective of pointing out the failings of the current policy. It's become apparant in recent days that both conservatives and liberals are not happy with what Obama is doing under current policy. I differ greatly from the author as far as what I believe is the best way to resolve the current problems with Obama's mishandling of the economy. |
Quote:
It's a fair point, though it definately merits further discussion. Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done. I get the feeling that Obama is trying to hit a middle ground and in the process, is pissing everyone off. Much like Congress, he's got to start taking a stand rather than holding the middle ground. |
Quote:
untrue blanket statement. |
Quote:
you insinuate that Biden thinks they did the wrong thing, or didnt do what needed to be done, when he meant, IMO, that they needed to do MORE not less as evidenced by him saying they UNDERESTIMATED the unemployment rate AND not ruling out a second stimulus package. Your insinuation and omission on this borders on lying in this thread, IMO: Quote:
USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Monday, July 6, 2009 cue Cyndi Lauper |
Uh... I think your insinuation about what MBBF was saying borders on lying. He didn't insinuate any such thing about Biden's comments. Read his post again, please:
Quote:
After he posted about Krugman and co. |
so is the "...and what needed to be done." not attributable to Biden in that sentence? Did he mean that that portion was to be linked to the "intelligent minds" part of the sentence?
If he's attributing that portion to Biden than his insinuation is a lie based on what Biden stated in other portions of the interview to paint Biden as considering a stance of anti-stimulus and anti-intervention. If it's attributable to "intelligent minds" than I think the sentence structure is wrong...unless my comprehension is bad. |
This strikes me as an effective ad and something that the GOP could build on. The fact that Al Franken happened to be the guy to make it 60 is, I think, something that will symbolically hurt the Democrats.
Of course, with Kennedy and Byrd in bad health and Collins and Snowe able to be pursuaded to vote with the Dems and a few conservative Dems ready to break ranks, it isn't as clean as 60/40. But it makes for a heck of a soundbite: "They got 60 Senators and a President. I'm not sure why they keep saying that we are the problem." YouTube - "60" On a related note--how do I embed youtube videos here? Edit--Maybe I am prejudiced toward this ad because, even as a Democrat, I agree with it. If you can't get stuff done with this big of a majority, then you do have, at least, a bit of a leadership problem. |
A couple of things from a single Biden quote here
Quote:
First, anybody else get the feeling that some (most?) of these generic economists -- regardless of what point of view they're pushing -- aren't all that interested in actually making the economy get better but rather are engaged in some sort of sandbox "let's see what happens if we ..." using tax dollars to do it? Obviously they can't do it themselves directly but I've had the feeling more than once in recent months that they're enjoying their collective celebrity a little too much & have figured they may never get a better chance to do real world experiments on a large scale so it's become a game of "let's see if we can get them to do X, Y, and Z so we can see what happens". Second, the phrase "spur the economy once again" sure seems to take a hell of a leap in assuming that the first one spurred anything in the first place. |
Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.
|
Quote:
If so, I hope they include projections of what they expected it to be if there was no "stimulus" versus what they projected with their package. |
Quote:
I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing. http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf |
Quote:
It's good to see that the administration has such a good handle on the economy. Geez. This is kind of the economic version of thinking there were WMDs in Iraq, especially since we're probably looking at 10.5% at least before it's over. |
I'm not sure if it's substantial enough to send it very high, but I thought at least a decent contribution to the rising unemployment number was that severence packages (Wall St especially) are running out so these people are now being included in the unemployment figure.
|
Quote:
That's what I was looking for, thanks. Dude is as out of touch as Bush when it comes to shit. |
It should at least be acknowledged that the prediction for unemployment numbers was based on the original stimulus plan, not the version eventually signed into law.
That being said, there was a lot of argument at the time from people like Krugman that the admin was underestimating the downside and should have pushed a larger, more immediate stimulus package. |
Imagine how bad it wouldve been without...
My point is, either side will be able to claim victory or "right" on this as posted in the recession thread. In this thread Im certain that conclusion will fall along partisan lines. I certainly hope no one is wishing for it like Glen Beck's guest the other night that said the only thing that will save the USA was Osama Bin Laden attacking us again. Im certain everyone hopes that the plans put in place by our leaders are successful. |
Quote:
That sentiment is why it's so easy to trick people into thinking big spending is the answer. You can always claim success. |
and vice versa.
|
Quote:
I'm not even sure that matters at this point. Being a political leader is much like being a coach of a sports team. You could make all the right decisions and still get fired if your players don't perform. Right now, you'd have a hard time distinguishing between the U.S. economy and the Washington Nationals. |
Quote:
Nah, that's easy. The Nationals have a better bullpen. |
It goes both ways, but the burden is on whoever's in power. It's easy to be on the outside and criticize, as we saw during the Bush years.
It's kind of like that Palin/Clinton thing from the other thread. When Bush is in power, liberals have all the answers (or if not the answers, at least they knew that the administration's policies on everything, especially national security, were wrong, despite the unavailability of proof that an alternative policy would be successful), but when Obama is in power, it's "hey, we don't know for sure that an alternative would have worked better". |
I was for the stimulus, although I had reservations about the amount of non-stimulus tax cuts and the overall proportion of spending on public works projects. At this point I think it's too early to judge the effectiveness of the stimulus given how much more will be spent over the next 12 months. AT this point I think it's fair to argue that the stimulus hasn't done much, but I can't see how you can make the leap to the stimulus made things worse. By the next election results will be more clear and if things are still flat or heading south I expect the Dems will take it on the chin.
The idea, though, that stimulus spending is some great unknown is ridiculous. There's literally mountains of evidence that show that stimulus spending can be effective for bridging a gap in demand. In fact if short term demand is the major problem there isn't anything as effective as government spending. |
Quote:
Drunken sailors have nothing on Congress. Drunken sailors spend all the money they have and then pass out in a stupor for a few days before getting back to work. Congress spends all the money they have, a bunch of money they don't have, and then go on vacation for ages before coming back to spend more money. |
 |
awesome.
|
 Better photo. I think he is wondering what is up with her Jesus sandals. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Must be a teleprompter on her ass. |
Quote:
Watch the entire video. Its the french dude with ass radar. |
Well, wasn't it France where one of the more recent PMs had a mistress who kept showing up at public events with him?
SI |
I would hit it
|
I'm just glad that there's nothing really important going on, so the media can spend an entire day debating whether or not the president looked at someone's ass.
|
Freepers plan on overthrowing Obama??
Free Republic founder is in the process of writing what appears to be some sort of document to instigate the overthrow of President Obama. Some highlights: Quote:
Quote:
|
The guy is a fucking inbred moron. He's going to overthrow the government with a handful of racist morons from his site who can't even afford a plane ticket to Washington. The whole thing would be funny if it weren't for the fact they've been breeding terrorists lately.
|
What possessed you to read that in the first place?? Weird. (Reminds me of a lot of the stupid shit we endured during the Bush admin)
|
Quote:
Probably the same thing that prompted me to read Democratic Underground for a few months. It's fun, cheap, and easy to point out the batshit crazies in the other party. |
Quote:
+1 It validates my beliefs and allows me to believe that everybody on the right is like that :) |
dola
Is it just me, or has Free Republic gone from fringe right-wing to just absolute batshit crazy? A lot of the shit I've been reading on there lately looks like it belongs on Stormfront. |
The've always been like Stormfront. Back in the 90's they were known for talking incessently about Clinton's "n----- baby". Always been a hate site but is now bordering on a terrorist organization.
|
White House aides: "All Obama, All The Time"
Obama Heads to the Front to Do Battle on Health-Care Reform - washingtonpost.com The media barrage from this president is getting very old, very quick. At some point, you have to stop campaigning to make something happen and actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea. Outside of the day of Michael Jackson's funeral, Obama has been making speeches nearly every day around lunch time for 45-60 days. How do I know this? It's become a running joke in our lunchroom to be the first one to spot Obama when he comes on making a live speech during the lunch hour. He never lets us down. PR overload does not make you a good leader. If anything, it quickly minimizes the impact of your message when you go to the well one too many times. |
Quote:
From a Kaiser Foundation poll: Quote:
The problem isn't public support, it's the handful of centrist Senators who always think it's a better idea to do 2/3 of what's proposed. |
Quote:
1. That's a very generic poll that doesn't deal with the real issues at hand. It asks little more than "if we offered you something perfect, would you be in favor of it?". Of course they would. I'd be in favor of it as well as listed in that question, but that's not a full picture of what's being proposed nor does it present the numerous pitfall contained in the current legislation. 2. The core of my post surrounded the PR oversaturation of the Obama presidency. Those senators won't be swayed by the PR tactics. What people see right now is a Democrat president and a large majority-led Democrat Congress. Things aren't going well and nothing's happening. Continuing to hammer the public with too much PR when it's your fault along with Congress is an ill-conceived plan at best. |
I could post a handful of other polls, including this morning's Gallup that also say the public has strong support for a public option. I've only seen one poll(Rasmussen) that shows less than strong support. If you're going to say that his proposals aren't liked by the public, I'd like to see your data.
As for your second point, I have no idea if his speeches are over saturation. I'd want to know how many speeches he's given and how it compares to past Presidents. I do know your claim that he's given a speech nearly every day for the past two months is false, but that alone doesn't make him any more or less over saturated. |
Quote:
Been telling you this for a long long time. |
Quote:
You're playing games here. Nice try on the attempt to make this partisan, but there's little question that public support is dying out surprisingly quick given the large support for this president and Congressional majority in the recent election. Here's a poll from this morning discussing the faltering polling numbers on all fronts. Approval Ratings Drop for Obama on Health Care, Other Issues - washingtonpost.com Quote:
As far as his speaking engagements, there's a schedule here if you're interested. I did notice that his speaking engagements over lunch has slowed since returning from his latest foreign apology tour. http://www.politico.com/politico44/ |
How I'm I making this partisan? You claim that the President should, "actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea". Even the WaPo poll you cited says this:
Quote:
I'll give you that he's lost support in general on healthcare, but the legislation that's being discussed, still has strong public support. What policies has the President put forth that the public doesn't support? And once you start throwing out lines like foreign apology tour you should lose the ability to complain about partisanship. |
Quote:
You made the Rassmussen citation when I hadn't even used that polling service as a reference. You were making a partisan reference and trying to minimize my argument when it had no references to that polling service. If you think it's a good idea for Obama to continue to apologize for our past overseas when there's no reason to do it, that's fine. I'm not of that opinion. |
Dude, get another cup of coffee. Just saying Rasmussen is partisan? Is it now the new Kirby Pucket?
I'm done with the apology tour silliness. |
Quote:
The implication was transparent. I hope Mr. Obama is done too. Would save us all a lot of unneeded trouble. |
RASMUSSEN!
|
Quote:
:eek: |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.