Glenn Beck vs. Ed Schultz. Given the size of their bellies, I think the man wih the longer arm reach wins. Got to get ahold of your opponent to beat him.

I mean, is the only problem you have with the fact that he's actually calling them out on it? I mean, is FoxNews really a legit news organization (aside from MSNBC, CNN, etc). They constantly make "errors" of party affiliation in scandals, they air clips during their news shows that are out of context to make any democrat (especially Obama) look bad, they distort nearly everything, and their highest rated show(s) are blowhards that spread lies and repeat talking points. So sure, it seems rather petty to call out the idiot channel, but at the same time you've belabored this for days as if it affected your life in some profound manner, or that we should all be "concerned" or something. I know you are in the middle and as "independent" as they come, but at least put the bullhorn down for a few hours to scan the other GOP blogs for some other "news" to paste here in faux concern.

Ahhhh but Schultz was a football player. Advantage: MSNBC!

I'm not sure how meaningful such a debate is because it's all pure speculation. However, I very much doubt invading Iraq (or not) had much influence on whether we got attacked in the balance of the Bush Administration or not. If you take a look at the attacks that have been foiled, you'll see that it's generally a combination of increased security and/or vigilance due to 9/11 (i.e. on planes, in airports, this avenue is effectively closed to terrorists now) and good intelligence/law enforcement work by the FBI, local law enforcement in the U.S., and various intelligence agencies around the world.

I'm not responding to the PATRIOT Act, because the claim here was about the Iraq War, and I think drawing a straight line between invading Iraq and the lack of attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is very dangerous thinking. It's the kind of "one cause, one effect" thinking that gave us, for instance, the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

As the plethora of attacks and attempted attacks worldwide since 9/11 have shown, there continue to exist a wide variety of vectors for terrorist attacks. This is going to be a problem for us, for everyone, for a long time. Thinking we can solve it by creating a honeypot in another part of the world is very, very dangerous wrong thinking, and thinking that's not even based on actual evidence.

We need good and sophisticated techniques to counter this threat, and randomly invading countries in the Middle East wasn't it, and won't be it in the future.

and we disagree. I dont think any of those shows belong on a channel with "News" in the title and have coalesced a bit to Cam's point and could see them with an editorial banner at the top or bottom but, hey we disagree, nothing new.

The fact that Al Qaeda continues to operate on a worldwide basis should be of concern to you. While I'm not arguing that you should care about the Australians Al Qaeda blows up in Jakarta, or the Spaniards Al Qaeda blows up in Madrid, or the Turks Al Qaeda blows up in Istanbul, I'm confused by your inability to see the evidence of Al Qaeda's continuing operational capability to be relevant to our own security situation.


But Al Qaeda has continued to be able to recruit on our home turf. There have been multiple arrests in the U.S. just this year of Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. who were planning attacks.

By invading Iraq we did not take the fight to their "home turf" because their home turf can be anywhere. Look, this concept didn't even work for the British in Northern Ireland, and Al Qaeda has no "home turf" as clearly defined as the IRA's.


I'm not addressing that. I'm saying this is an inaccurate statement:


This claim has as much factual basis as a claim that the Raiders suckage this decade is mainly due to Bill Belichick taking over the Patriots. There is no credible evidence to support the strength of the claim you're making as anything more than an incidental relationship.

So, just to be clear, I had stopped reading the thread for a few pages (and probably will do so again once this argument has run its course) so I came in on page 128 and was only specifically replying to your belief that invading Iraq made us safer (which I have hopefully made clear by this point).

I can completely see why people would still support specific Republicans in this day in age and even, to an extent, the Republican party.

I mean, I supported Democrats in the early 90s even when it was clear that the party in general and the leadership in particular were a bunch of corrupt, out of touch, idiots.


I may be wrong on this, but I thought the most egregious aspects of the PATRIOT Act were supposed to sunset soon anyway, so tactically the Democrats are just going to let them sunset and have the problem resolve itself. But I could be wrong, as I haven't kept up on this.

Because some people feel that the government exists to do something and that there are some things that need to be regulated and some programs that need to exist. The answer to nearly every issue shouldn't be "get the government out of it."

I get the primetime comparison between Fox and MSNBC, but where on Fox is the equivalent of the three hours MSNBC gives to Scarborough and his frequent contributor Pat Buchanan?

As for Grayson, he's a back bencher that's figured out a way to be a star. His clown act is raising a ton of money, but his substance is very similar to Bachmann and the like. The tragedy is these acts work.

I think people are smart enough to figure out the difference as far as which shows are opinon, but I've been known to give the human race far too much credit at times from an intelligence standpoint. :)

Well, the DOW went over 10,000 earlier this week (or was it last week?), so wrong here. I never felt particularly good about this prediction, to be honest, but I think it just goes to show that the stock market really doesn't mirror the economy at large anymore.

Edit: if it ever did (mirror the economy)

Not the arguements I see on tv or this board. Nobody (a lot of hindsight, but still) is a big fan of the war in Iraq yet Democrats seem to use this as their reason to press some of their unpopular ideas. You think health care is a waste of money? What about the war!? Nobody seems to be a big fan of welfare but the Republicans say... you don't like tax breaks to big corporations? Well I don't like people living off the tit of the government!

The answer to most issues is get the federal government out of it. And you can talk roads, military (which isn't a slamdunk anymore with our military inductrial complex), internet, etc all you want. But take a look sometime where your tax dollars are really going (welfare, federal education subsidies, farmers, corporations, GM, Goldman Sachs, etc) and tell me why I shouldn't want the government out of it. Give me something besides the military that even a fraction of my tax dollars are spent on and I will consede that I shouldn't want the government out of my life as much as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a rather staunch Paulite? Isn't Paul a member of the GOP?

Fox and MSNBC both have counter-point people on their shows. I'm not sure how having Scarborough on MSNBC minimizes their leanings. He gets pounded on his own show more often than not mainly because most of his guests lean to the liberal side. He's the personal punching dummy of the network.

There are a lot of us who DON'T think health care is a waste of money. The reason we sometimes use things like the war as rebuttals is because the reasons often stated by the opposition is "It costs too much and the nation can't afford it." A logical response to that is to point out the trillions we spend on defense and wars, that the majority of Republicans don't have a problem with. I don't see why that wouldn't make sense to you.


I don't understand that last statement, to be honest. I think the basic point that many were making is that we spend too much (as a percentage) on the wars and defense and need to do more in other areas.

In general, the free market cannot and will not police itself. I think that the financial meltdown has proven that we need more government intervention, not less. And something has to be done about healthcare for sure. 62% of the bankruptcies in this nation come from medical problems and of those, 78% of the families that went bankrupt had health insurance at the start of their illness. That is not a system that is working. Well, I take that back. It works great. Until you get sick.

The system isn't going to fix itself.

There's no comparison between guests and the host of the show. It's Scarborough's show. He has a great deal of control over what guests are aired. He has exactly the same amount of on-air time as Olberman, Maddow and Schultz combined. Does Fox give three hours to a former Democratic congressman?

Like I said, I get the primetime comparison, but to say MSNBC is as much an arm of the Democratic Party as Fox is of the GOP means ignoring the three hours every weekday of Scarborough and Buchanan.

Not really a staunch Ron Paul supporter. He is about as close as it gets to what I believe in Congress right now but he would not be my optimal candidate. He is a big believer following in the Constitution which I agree with but here is a perfect example where that would go completely haywire if he had his way. He thinks that Federal Reserve has way too much power and can't just print money at will. (I agree wholeheartedly) However his solution is that the Constitution says that gives that power to Congress. :eek: Bernanke and Greenspan vs Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi?

But in general I agree with his views more than any other. What exactly is your beef with Paul except for the fact that he has to run as a Republican because of how screwed up the political system is? Saw in an interview that he made last year that he was able to get his message out to millions more as the wacky GOP candidate with no chance than when he was the Libertarian's candidate for president back in 1988. You don't remember when Obama and McCain shut Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin out of the debates. If they are such nut jobs why not let the American public decide? Why continue the two party monopoly? Expose these Libertarians for their crazy ideas! Or maybe they are scared that Americans might have to actually think and not debate whether MSNBC or Fox News spins better.

FOX has counterpoint people? Who??

Colmes!

Is that show even on anymore?

I've said many times the game is rigged against third parties, but I don't think the answer is letting everyone into the debates. At some point it really should be viable candidates only, but the problem is establishing viability. It might work to have at least one third party candidate debate.

My bigger point is that Paul has decided to work through the two party system and supporting Paul also means working through the two party system. It's not necessarily the choice of ignorant sheep, it can be a rational decision based on how the world currently works. I'm not interested in supporting a third party because I don't think in my lifetime I can get any closer to my policy preferences through a third party, not because I hope to continue some sort of corporate oligarchy.

Saw this graph and thought it was interesting. Maybe sometime soon we'll have a sensible marijuana policy.

to counteract that though, i dvr'd something the other day (forget what channel) called "Pot City, USA" talking about the problems that legal medicinal marijuana has brought to California, focusing specifically on Humboldt County and the town of Arcata." It's a fucking mess. Something like 1 in 7 houses have been rented out for use as grow-houses and the insides are destroyed. There are criminal elements all over the place, armed men at the grow houses, the occasional shooting, etc.

Was talking with my brother - there needs to be some sort of "it is illegal to grow in residential areas" type law, or zoning for it or something. Also laws about regular inspection of growing conditions and a prohibition against firearms of any sort located either on a property where growing is occuring, or on the person of anybody located on such a property.

I'd be happy to plow some corn under and plant some marijuana.

I hate it when Libertarians use the phrase "ignorant sheep". While I don't think a lot of people are using common sense, all that using the term “ignorant sheep” does is makes them come across as an elitist.

To your point on Ron Paul... I agree that he worked through the two party system but he also never gets taken into the partisan bickering about Fox News or the war or the economy. He sticks to principles. Most of the time his views are in line with the Republicans but sometimes (Iraq, war on drugs, Bush's out of control spending) they are against party lines. That's all I look for. There are a few Republicans and Democrats who are the same way. What happens at FOFC and on tv and with most members of both parties is they get caught up in the nonsense of partisan bickering while they ram stuff through that supports nobody but special interests and their re-election campaign. And that is what I don't get about the people on here. They will blindly support one side or the other just to argue when in fact neither side is looking out for their interests at all.

I didn't say that. You'll have to talk to the person who associated either network with a political party.

I don't really think he gets pounded. It's a pretty mixed cast of characters, but it's still dominated by Scarborough. I actually think it's a good show because it doesn't go as far to the left or right as the evening guys do. One of the few shows that actually has some quality interviews and substance. Not just the daily talking points.

youve never done this in any thread?

I've associated each with how they lean (liberal, conservative), but I've never said that either was an outlet of a party.

yeah, you probably havnt stated that any station has been the official mouthpiece of any party...

Lets define associated though.

very happy that it looks like the expanded hate crimes bill is going to get passed and signed into law...ridiculous that its taken this long.

Frame it however you want. The point is that saying and Fox and MSNBC are equals means ignoring that big block in the morning when Scarborough and Buchanan are given free reign.

That's fine if you want to justify it in that manner. I watched the Joe clips over at Huffington Post this morning. He was a punching bag. It was him being hammered by 4 other commentators who were obviously very biased to the left. If I was MSNBC, I'd be pissed that I had bent over backwards to support this administration only to see them give all the ratings to Fox News with a strategic move that makes very little sense.

Oooh! Oooh! What was the big right wing blog outrage this morning?

While this is a cute little farce that everyone plays up, it has little basis in fact. The truth is that I post more articles from left-leaning sites than anyone in this thread. For that matter, it's a farce that the current administration is playing up and looking foolish in doing so. But feel free to level the attacks at other posters. It's a lazy way to discuss politics instead of discuss the daily issues at hand. No one's keeping you from posting some topics of note, but it's easier to make it about the poster than it is to actually discuss the topic.

This is an interesting development given the upcoming climate change meetings. There's a substantial erosion in belief amongst the American public that climate change is man-made.

Steep Decline In Americans' Belief In Global Warming

There is also a significant percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's Ark. I don't think I would put much stock in the American public vs. Science.

O RLY

Im also glad you posted that stuff about climate change and the Noah's Ark thing and thereby reiterated your support for the need for a "Editorial" disclaimer on the shows on 'News' channels that aren't.

Dola:

Once gas prices start climbing back up all of a sudden Americans will care about our dependence on foreign oil and start buying into global warming again.

This shows that you either don't get out enough or have not had significant interaction with everyday people. I think a good reason we have a lot of people in office (D and R) is because people are too dumb and lazy to figure things out. Most people I know down here (non-academics, good old Southerners) are not smart enough and just pick up on the outrage of these shows. That goes for the bleeding liberals deep inside the A as well. But I'm told that just because one is intelligent doesn't mean theirs is the only opinion that matters...

The article didn't say it was proof that anything did or didn't change. It just noted that public perception had changed, which means the party in power faces more of an uphill battle than they would have as little as one year ago.

The science is obviously up for debate.

Well, I have noted in another thread that I steer clear of Wal-Mart at all costs. That may be where I'm missing out on seeing 'everyday people'.

Like Evolution?

Wonderful article in Newsweek a few weeks ago that totally debunked the ANTI-Evolution argument.

1. What is 'like evolution'? Quote what you're talking about. It's tough enough to follow your arguments as it is. :p

2. Link the article. I'm not even sure what you're saying it debunked.

And while I agree with you on a lot of conservative causes I refuse to get on board with the religion vs. science argument on global warming. IMO it isn't up for debate. Does science change when new things are proven? Absolutely. Could it change in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years? I am sure it might. Does all current research point towards us causing a lot of the global warming right now? Yes.

My dad is a scientist (actually really conservative in his political views) and I take his opinion and that of almost the entire scientific community over people that don't like Al Gore.

Religion vs. science? What debate is that? I'm talking about the sparring between the various scientists as to whether it's a man-made effect. Personally, for me, it's not a case of me believing it's not man-made. I just don't think that there's enough evidence to make the correlation without doubt. I also think people should be eco-friendly in general just because it's a good idea to keep the environment clean. As for Al Gore, they could use a better spokesman, especially given his move to profit through eco-business investments that have grown largely because of his 'documentary'.

Oooh boy! It's global warming Friday!

Americans are gung ho for pretty much anything for the first three months. Then they realize effort and/or sacrifice is involved and quickly sour.

I have found it interesting, however, that global temperatures have actually dropped since the highs in the mid-90's. Of course, a drop in temperature doesn't necessarily mean that global warming doesn't exist either, but Americans have never really been into thinking beyond their generation. It's just the nature of the beast.

It really isn't sparring between scientists. I have read it is basically between 85 and 95%. And if you don't think the Republicans try and convince people that it isn't happening by playing off the "Science? Science doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, you going to believe Science?" than you must not really live in the Midwest like I do. It is totally a debate based solely on politics (mostly anti Al Gore) and religion and no reason whatsoever.

And I am not a big fan of most of Al Gore's other politics. And I think he is very hypocritical when he lives in mansions and flies jets and tells me to cut back on my energy usage. But it still doesn't mean he isn't right on this. Even Nancy Pelosi is right on a couple of things. :)

No doubt. I just have studied science my whole life and think the amount of reason used and the mythology used is enough for me to give them the benefit of the doubt over somebody that has "faith" in a 2000 year old book.

But even the "enlightened" Americans are still all about themselves. A lot of people hate Ayn Rand and think she doesn't give human beings much credit but she pushed an idea that it is hard to argue with.

Again, like Mizzou, I don't understand where you're going here with the whole 2000 year old book vs. science. What does the Bible have to do with global warming? It would be like someone saying that they don't believe in global warming because the scientists are mostly liberal and therefore more likely to be pot-smoking hippies. How can you trust a pot-smoking hippie when it comes to science?

OT, but you brought it up --> Oh, and maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Ayn Rand preached the power of human beings above all. :)

We'll just agree to disagree. I'm not here ultimately to debate the point. I was just noting in what is a political thread that the administration will get a lot more flack over any global warming legislation or agreements with other countries than they would have as little as one year ago.

You're starting to sound like Rainmaker in this quote. The notion that most conservatives have blind faith in the Bible is highly outdated.

Looks the the entire White House press pool is refusing to do any interviews with any administration officials until the White House allows ALL press pool members to do the interviews. This move to blackball Fox News from press pool interviews stands in stark contrast to JPhillips assertion that the White House would not try to control the White House press pool.

White House's Fox News Boycott Attempt Prompts Network Revolt

people don't believe in global warming?

wtf?

No, I merely pointed out that the first article you said showed the WH was blocking Fox didn't say that. The difference is that now you have some evidence.

good. So much for Liberal Media Bias.

All editorial and opinion shows should have a disclaimer when theyre aired on a News network.

What's that old saying? About how you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?

Apparently not even Owl Gore is immune to that one.

Unless they've figured out that having the administration officials for interviews isn't nearly as valuable to FXNC as having martyrdom handed to them with official status.

To think that we are not having any effect on the environment as we pump shit in to the atmosphere and consume species until they are endangered is silly ignorance. It's just that these idiots let their personal feelings for the messenger get in the way, when in fact the messenger is just bringing data together from other respected sources.

Whether or not the Earth has "warmed" may be debatable, but the simple fact is we are probably not helping with all the pollution and waste dumping.

No, lots of people don't believe it is manmade. There's a difference.

The fact is that a large majority of scientists agree that man-made global warming is happening. Much like the argument against evolution, many try to muddy the waters and make it appear as if there is not nearly the consensus that there is. It's one thing to look at the scientific data and disagree, but all these amateur scientists that have convinced themselves they know better than those who study it for a living amuse me.

There is also a ton of politically-driven "science" going on, there is a continued break-down in honest science being done across all disciplines, and there is a lot of science that points to natural factors having a pretty large impact.

But when it comes to the average person, the biggest factor affecting their opinion is that temperatures have been flat for most of this decade. And that's all they look at.

And I agree with that 100% and I don't think anyone would say otherwise. I don't think there's any question that the pollution and waste dumping that occurs in many nations is a big issue. I would note that the U.S. is far more restrictive than most countries in that regard.

idiots

Are we stooping to namecalling already? You want to ignore the reems of evidence that show we are in a natural warming cycle and the effects the sun has had? But if you'd rather namecall, there is no point.

Sounds like maybe this wasn't the case.

WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview | TPMDC

:lol:

how do you feel about evolution?

there isn't any "reams of evidence" that you can provide by credible scientists that show that we are "in a natural warming cycle and the sun has had large effects on things." I'm not saying there's not reams of evidence, but I question the scientific credentials of those who are producing it.

It's hard to believe, I know, but maybe there was less here than first reported. From Talking Points Memo:

The current trend of rediculing to produce obedience isn't the proper way to produce scientific consensus.

Have to disagree. A lot of people are acting "shocked" like they don't know that a large portion of the people who don't believe that global warming is human caused are the same people who believe literally in the Bible and evolution. Sorry but somebody who believes the Bible literally is an idiot. (Notice I didn't question faith, I questioned the 6000 year Earth crowd)

So somebody who can't figure out that we never coexisted with dinosaurs questioning the effects of greenhouse gases is like somebody coming up to me and saying they don't really believe that 1+1=2 and for me to please listen to their problems with the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. They deserved to be ridiculed.

Overgeneralization on a scale not even reached by Rainmaker at any point in time. That's simply not true.

Yeah, fuck science. Mob rule ftw.

Or maybe there was plenty, but the administration realizes they're acting like immature adolescents at this point and is trying to find a way to backtrack.

Fox News Refutes Reports That 'Pay Czar' Interview Never Was Requested - Political News - FOXNews.com

FWIW........the call for the Obama administration to back off was universal on the Sunday morning shows on the major networks. They'd be best served to back off at this point.

lol - isn't it likely that the truth is (as always) somewhere in the middle? maybe they requested the interview but their request got lost or something

I have no idea what this means? My thoughts go anywhere from you agreeing with me 100% to you mocking me. Not that worried about it but your response doesn't really make much sense.

Can't you read? Fox News says Fox News was treated unfairly.

From today's TPM:

Yeah, maybe we could all just make up what we think happened rather than actually looking to find out what actually did happen! Sounds like a fun game!

Interesting discussion about the discontent of the independent voters. They mainly discuss how the Democrats have lost a good portion of the independents that backed them during the 2008 election. I'm sure there are also some that have left the Republicans as well, but it obviously is to a lesser degree since many of the independents swayed Democrat in the last election, so their move away from the party is much more noticable.

RealClearPolitics - Irate and Independent

:rolleyes:

how many times have you done the exact same thing and then never admitted the error when factually proven wrong? I mean you did it in the Iran thread when we were all on the same side.

I'm not sure the Dems have lost more. One of the misperceptions among the media is that independents are in the middle. The race for NY-23 where the Conservative Party candidate and the moderate GOP candidate are splitting the votes and endorsements of traditional Republican voters is a good example.

I'm not sure how to go about getting the data, but I'd love independents to get broken down so they aren't considered one ideology.

edit: Not really a discussion at RCP, but an editorial from a writer for one of America's most right wing newspapers.

This is the flip side of the Fox News debate. A Democratic rep decided to be a funny guy on a Fox News interview. Rather than let his somewhat awkward statement stand as is, the Fox News interviewer got defensive and fired back. Had he not got defensive, no big deal. But IMO, the interviewer comes off looking bad along with the rep. He should have just thanked the guests and left it at that to keep it civil. Instead, both of them look pretty juvenile with their final exchange.

Fox News Anchor Yells At Democrat After "Fair & Balanced" Remark (VIDEO)

please, they both came off looking fine IMO.

i for one applaud MBBF for his attempts at being more fair and balanced himself Flasch.

I guess I expect more of a State rep and the host of a national news show. The back and forth at the end sounded like a 6th grade schoolyard discussion than two grown men. Perhaps I'm asking too much.

What do you mean? I think they both looked fine. The Congressman took a swipe and the talking head simply said I wont stand for it. If anything I think the talking head looked better than the congressman but not by much. I actually dont think either of them did anything really outlandish in the clip I saw. {yawn}

Since this seems to be the catchall political thread - how ironic is it that John McCain (who has widely professed to being technologically illiterate), who is also the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from telecom companies, has introduced this bill against net neutrality?

McCain used to be friends with Alexander Graham Bell. Seems like a perfect fit to me. :)

OMG Obama has played as much golf as Bush did in 2 years 10 months!

Do they consider that maybe, just maybe, Obama likes to golf more than GW? :)

A president's use of some free time or his vacation has to be the most overscrutinized thing ever. The president has a 24/7 job. They're basically on-call at all times even when they're vacationing somewhere else. Looking at the before/after pictures of presidents tell you all you need to know about the stress involved in the job.

This Gallup study that was just released confirms much of what I was saying regarding an earlier poll that said that only 20% of the population identify themselves as Republican. While many are turning away from the social stances of the Republican Party, there still remains a strong segment of the population (40%) that holds to conservative ideology. Liberal ideology is a distant 3rd.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Co...cal-Group.aspx

and then something comes out that flies in the face of MBBF but Im sure he'll find a way of invalidating it. Oh to live in a world where the only "truth" is that which supports your stance to begin with.

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling - Yahoo! News

Ummmmm, why does that fly in the face of what I've said? They've noted a trend, but there's no research here to actually understand why the trend occurred or whether it's a man-made phenomenon.

In your rush to villanize me rather than address the specific points that were made in my posts, you've provided an article that doesn't address any of the points that I made. I never disagreed with the point that there is a short-term (i.e. roughly 100 years) increase in global temperature. I disagreed with the conclusion that it was a man-made increase in temperature.

It's amazing that those numbers have remained within the margin of error over almost twenty years.

I will take exception to your analysis of the numbers, however. Nowhere can I find data that says conservatives are rejecting the social agenda. In fact the three items they pull out that can be loosely seen as social issues shows growing support.

Fair enough. I can see your point there.

Maurice Greenberg Is Busy Building His ‘A.I.G. 2,’ C. V. Starr - NYTimes.com



But executive pay caps for bailed out firms are a good thing, right!!

If a firm has taken bailout money than until they pay it back than they need to be more regulated than those firms that didnt need the bailout.

The law of unintended consequences... you limit executive pay, then those executives who could turn the company around leave for companies that will pay them the market rate.

I'm not sure it's a negative to lose a lot of executives who got AIG into the shithole in the first place.

Not all the execs were bad. And what about attracting other executives?

In this particular case I don't think we'll ever see much of the AIG money returned, so I'm not all that concerned about their staffing.

Moving forward I'd like to see a regulatory structure in place to either efficiently deal with these large institutions when they fail or break them into pieces that can't get too big to fail. Neither option, I expect, will make it through congress.