Very nicely crafted strawman. Well done.

Wait. You said the economy is not going to turn around because business owners won't do squat because of government spending and he says that's not true. I know the word strawman is the cool buzz word on political sites when someone beats your point of view, but I don't think you even know what it means now.

By using the word 'solely' in his post, he was making an argument that no single business made their decisions based on debt increases alone. That's a 'duh' statement at its finest. He created an argument that I never made. That, by definition, is a strawman argument and has little to do with 'cool buzz word on political sites'. This is far from a political site.

How many more shots can Geitner take at this point before he's out? Report on Bloomberg says that AIG was asked to cover up some of its practices by Geitner-led NY Fed.........

Geithner’s New York Fed Told AIG to Limit Swaps Disclosure

Solely, majority, even a few. You made a comment that made it seem like the economy would not grow because owners would be scared of the government and its spending. Maybe there are a couple business owners like that, but those owners would be out of business regardless for being bad business owners in the first place. It's just a ridiculous argument not based in reality. Just like the argument that raising taxes on someone over $250k will magically have employers firing employees left and right.

And you have fallen into the same assumptions which don't mirror my argument. The debt is being run up by multiple factors. Those factors are also reasons why business have curtailed spending/hiring, but the skyrocketing debt is the easily identifiable symptom. They're the same things we've been talking about for months now and it hasn't changed. JPhillips grabbed something and ran with it when it had little to do with my argument. Much like others hold me to a higher standard in this thread, it's about time that JPhillips is held to a similar standard. His arguments have become lazy and honestly disappointing of late. He's better than that (or at least I think he is). Perhaps I'm asking too much of him.

Seriously? You're calling out someone for shoddy standards? I mean, just this morning you were back to your weekly "feigning shock while posting yet another anti-Democrat talking point" routine.

SI

You weren't shocked that a democrat was the one taking the jab at Obama? Perhaps this points out that no one is shocked by anything that the Democrats do to get some of these bills with weak public support through Congress, especially when a Democrat leader is the one pointing it out. It's a good point by you.

Well, at least I'm not dishonestly disappointing.

Enjoyed this story over lunch. It's kindof a simple premise, but needs reiterating, particularly in this polarized climate.

SI

i'm no fan of geithner - if this stuff is true as it seems to be and it was essentially another taxpayer-funded round of bailouts for AIG's CDS division then the guy should be thrown out on his ass, and frankly, prosecuted on behalf of the taxpayers whom he helped to defraud.

i think the "guilt by association" has to end somewhere though. otherwise there'd be nobody left in government. and i think i have been pretty consistent about that from the Bush administration to now - unless there's direct evidence that there was knowledge of this by the administration, or pressure from the administration to do this, then you can't tie it back to the White House. And that's regardless of which party is in power.

This isn't guilt by association. Geitner was their boss. That's a pretty direct relationship.

oh no, i agree with that, and like i said, geithner seems to be in hot water over this. just wanted to point out that i don't think it's valid to level any criticism at the administration "upstream" based on this unless there's some sort of link to his decisions. I was presuming that someone would jump to that conclusion rather quickly.

Well, Obama did appoint him, so you've got to wonder just how much vetting was involved. But I think the fact that Obama's likely going to have to fire him and appoint a new one is punishment enough in that regard.

The unfortunate part is that we're likely to be without a permanent Treasury secretary for a few months during a time when we desparately need good leadership in that department.

How do you feel about Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney?

I'm not a fan of Dick Cheney, so you're asking the wrong guy if you're looking for a defense of that relationship.

you can only vet someone so much. you can't uncover everything about a person. if someone like this comes up you fire the person and pick a replacement and you've done your job.

I agree that what Geitner did is messed up, but it seems like EVERYONE who was involved was trying to get Goldman a sweetheart deal. The whole thing leaves a real sour taste in my mouth.

probably since they're all in Goldman's pocket one way or another.

Did you read Aaron Sorkin's book? Wonderful read on the whole situation. Can't recommend it enough.

I'm really curious to see how this administration will handle a double-dip recession.

really? is this guy serious? do they just think people are stupid, or are they that dumb?

This smells of "the economy will collapse if there isn't confidence" type of thinking...or the loss of even more in the financial system. Seemed to be popular at that time amongst many of our "best and brightest" financial minds.

How about we had attacks under both of them and if we don't shift our never-ending war policy in the Middle East they will continue? Obama is light years ahead of where Bush ended up as far as Middle East policy goes but unfortunately his escalation of the war in Afghanistan shows that neither political party can get off the tit of the military industrial complex. When Obama won I had a lot of mixed emotions. I was glad that the Bush clone McCain wasn't going to get us into world war III. I was proud that our country elected a black president. I was scared about possible economic boondoggles like health care and jobs programs. I was very eager for a Democrat to lessen the drug war, make huge strides with civil liberties, and end the pointless policing of the world. He has been allright but until the Republicrats get to the root of why somebody would want to take their own life and hundreds of others on a flight to (of all places) Detroit they will never understand that you can't win a war against a tactic. They don’t hate our money and our freedom and until the general public stops buying the government line on that one we will just have to be “shocked” when somebody tries it again.

As far as Giuliani goes hopefully even the Republicans realize what a useless retard he is. 9-11, 9-11, 9-11...

Sadly Guliani's applause just shows how the sheep don't listen to what Paul is actually saying. And the end is pathetic with all of the candidates clamoring for 30 seconds to say "Rah rah rah America" and to not admit that maybe some of the shit this country does is wrong.

I suppose he would try to spin that and blame 9/11 on Clinton? :)

When did the Shoe Bomber happen? Wasn't that under Bush's administration? Didn't the Shoe Bomber get tried in a civilian court in the United States?

that too

Cool. Thought maybe my dates were off.

On a side note...who cares what happened under which administration, just fix the f'ing problem. It is obvious that the (semi) intellegence agencies are STILL not talking to each other and are STILL not sharing information. It's nice to see egos taking precidence over safety.

I agree but there are too many couch potato soldiers who want us sending young adults into these endless wars that don't change anything.

it's also been obvious for years that the job performance of the intelligence agencies has nothing to do with which administration is in power, or even who is in charge of the agencies, it's all about the career officers staffing them.

I agree with that. It's just a "Good ol Boys" system they have in place.

The Geithner article refers to what I've been calling the 'AIG shell game' and every bit of it is true. Its corruption at its finest, and its bipartisan before you guys try to make it a Republican/Democrat issue. They all rub each other's backs and suck off each other in the backroom while they are fucking us over. Enjoy the two(fine print:+ne -tw) party system.

We don't need 'investor confidence'... we need the economy to actually function. The lack of transparency benefits certain parties that are then using that power position for the next round of financial mismanagement. The gamers think, even after they have failed miserably, that they are the cleverest cats in the world and can't fail. Unfortunately, they realized with the bailout scenario... they don't need to change up their game because the rules about losing have been fundamentally changed.

Obama is playing along, he appointed the man he was told to... one thoroughly onboard with the screw America program. Everything I've seen out of Obama he seems just as paid off as Bush was, in my opinion.

There is no good reason to withhold what is going on at AIG from the public. Other than allowing a bundle of banks to 'pay off their government loans early' so they can 'be profitable' so they can GIVE MASSIVE BONUSES TO THEMSELVES AGAIN. And sure they'll take compensation as stock, who wouldn't when its at a high probability the lowest price it will be this decade (assuming anything other than the disaster scenario, which even my doom and gloom considers unlikely). I'd insist instead of 75/25 split, gimme my bonus at 100/0 and claim I'm doing an incredible favor for the American public.

Without the 'AIG shell game' you see a more distributed 'down-nessity' in the financial sector, which yes, I admit probably leads to less gangbuster 'investors' and a slow down in the stock buildup of this year. However, in my opinion we need a stock rally a lot less than an economy earning its way out of recession (i.e. RECOVERY). Give me my damn employment numbers already and then you'll see the stocks shoot up naturally.

I'm tired of the appearance of health in a company being more important than the fact. We are media spinning ourselves into the grave, bah fuck it all... I can break out the shorts if I have to.

yeah

God my short term short, that turned into a long term short is betting on this as well. Unfortunately I just dont see how we can avoid it.

That why the stock market is rising despite all indication it should suck... Contra-Flasch theorem!!!

We need that short to keep us all alive man!

HA! Im the reason for the rally please send your checks to the Aiden Flaschen College fund :)

Seems like you need a poll like this every six months.

In other news, the Director of the OMB is a player.

If Peter Orszag Is So Smart, What Will He Do Now? - NYTimes.com

the 60 minutes pieces on the election were real interesting tonight.

I dont know a ton but if Reid said what I think he said I dont see how he doesnt resign.

Republicans are calling for him to resign over the statement. The same Republicans who support guys who pass around songs called "Barack the Magic Negro" (almost elected one as head of the RNC). Such is politics these days.

It's interesting what he said though and outside of the moronic use of the word negro (which happens to be on the census?), I'm sure what he said has been said by people behind the scenes all of last year. It did benefit Obama that he was half-white and that he was such an eloquent speaker. It's also why you never see him get real angry in his speeches as he doesn't want to get labeled under the "angry black man" stereotype. Really stupid for a Senator to say around anyone like that but what he said is the truth.

The anger is over the fact that a Republican makes those exact same statements and the Dems crucify him/her. But Reid makes them and the Dems go "eh, he apologized, no biggie".

Not that both sides aren't hypocritical on stuff like this all the time.

For purely partisan reasons the GOP should go out of its way to make sure Reid doesn't resign.

Seriously. I can't imagine a more ineffective or less charasmatic leader than Harry Reid. People say that he is an arm-twister and player behind the scenes, but I wouldn't be sad to see him go, at all.

I haven't hid my hatred for Reid. I want him to get his ass kicked in 2010.

Yeah I understand. That's how politics is though. I do think the Trent Lott situation is much different.

I'm trying to think where I have seen the prediction for this (I could dig up the thread from early last year, if you want). It seems like some have argued for years that whether the Feds spend a lot of taxpayer's monies or little, they have had small effects.

The Joplin Globe - Online Edition

Watching the debate, and the only one who makes any sense at all is Kennedy.

From the very conservative American Enterprise Institute:


It wasn't employment focused enough, but the stimulus did what was expected, boost GDP short term.

I just can't believe that considers how thoroughly crushed he was on health care. Old Man Pelosi (I think I'm just going to start calling her that) keeps ramming stuff through the House and, admittedly, she has an easier job. But Reid's missteps in health care are horrible, with or without the backing of the President. First, he doesn't do anything to with Baucus for the finance committee debacle. Then he promises a public option before having the votes. He lets Lieberman keep his chair for all of his shenanigans. And then gets bent over the negotiation table by a pair of podunk 2-term Senators with no real power or committee status (Lincoln, Nelson). I mean, geez- if you can't even get your own party to go along for procedural votes, what good are you? I can't wait to see the arm-twisting he does to "help" climate change legislation.

I think this dies down quickly because the GOP realizes that he is more useful to them where he is for now and losing on election day.

SI

Video: Fright Club | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fright Club
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart adequately addresses this on yesterday's Daily Show, starting at about 2:20 in the above clip:

To summarize:
-An identical attack with the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, doesn't count but the Underpants bomber does
-Fort Hood counts but Hasan Akbar, who killed two soldiers on an American military base in Kuwait in 2003 doesn't
-2001 Anthrax attacks don't count as they went unsolved
-UNC SUV attack by Muslim student who claimed to be following in the footsteps of a 9/11 terrorist doesn't count as there were no deaths
-LAX ticket counter shooting in 2002 doesn't count as it was declared "international terrorism"
-DC Sniper doesn't count
-Bush/Cheney released terrorists who made some of these attacks back into Yemen, pulled troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, and these actions caused Al Qaeda is even stronger than before
-Oh, and apparently Bush kept us safe from all terror attacks including 9/11 (Do you know how much a copy of "My Pet Goat" sells for on Amazon? Too darn much)

And, as the title says, "According to John Oliver, Republicans are good at national security like the Democrats are good at black people."

SI

Awfully round numbers in the thread today

Posts:
7,500
Views:
73,000


SI

REALLY funny stuff.........

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Harry Reid's Racist Comment
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

LOL- I see what you did there

SI

Rudy has clearly lost it, but it's funny to now hear the Democrats bringing up every single attempted terrorist act they can think of, when the line during the Bush years was that the overbearing security measures weren't necessary because of the lack of attacks.

But ya, I'm always amazed by how good our security and homeland protection has been since 9/11. It was great under Bush, and it's been great under Obama. Nobody would have protected such a relatively terror-free a world after 9/11.

What's even more amazing is how good it was before 9-11-01.

World? Not so much.

Right, that's part of the reason I'm amazed by our success here.

the democrats are only bringing it up because the assertion by Rudy wasn't challenged and dispelled on the spot, and certain segments of the media have started to falsely go after Obama for not protecting Americans (see O'Reilly, Bill).

just evening things out is all.

although FWIW I'm one of the largest proponents of "national security and defense policy should not be politicized" that you'll ever find. Foreign policy in general also tends to be political-party agnostic over time in this country.

For that reason it always galls me when Republicans try to paint themselves as "the party of national security" when really they're no different.

Yes, and how good Europe was before the German invasion of Poland or how good the Pacific was before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Peace in our time to be sure!

Going very negative in the Massachusetts race. I'm not sure how the Democrats expect this tactic to be effective given that Palin isn't tied to the Mass. Senate race in any way.

Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race | Washington Examiner

Well, I trust a site with "The Bogus Stimulus Jobs Map" as one of its big features on the side and every single article bashing Dems with purposely over-the-top language (or being wishy-washy on Michael Steele).

SI

not sure why they'd go negative - Brown doesn't really have a chance.

I'd venture to say it could be snowing in hell and MA would still not elect a Republican Senator to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.

GOP polls show him within what...9pts? Dem polls show him still a good...15 or 16pts away (51-35 or something). Truth (as always) probably somewhere in the middle.

With the weather we've had lately... ;)

SI

It's pretty obvious what the goal is here. If Palin comes out in support of Brown it will likely hurt him among independents as her favorability is low outside of the right. Don't know if it will work, but it's not brain surgery or anything.

you left out a "FAR" in before "right" in your point.

sigh...

You serious? Europe was soooo peaceful before 1939 (what did Thomas Jefferson call Europe? "Nations of eternal wars"?)and there was no war in the Pacific either before Pearl Harbor. Forget it, I just erased about a two paragraph response. Your history teachers have taught you to see the world through red, white, and blue lenses. I am not going to convince you that meddling in other peoples business makes things worse and you won't convince me meddling in other people's business makes us safer. It's funny that you would be able to see this with any other country (USSR, England's empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) but if you think preemptive war is good for our country then lets leave it at that.

It's the link of the day on conservative sites so he's going to post it. I doubt he knows jack shit about the race. Just see link and post because it must be good if Michelle Malkin picked it.

Yes, because if there is one thing we can compare to our current situation, it's 1930's and 40's Poland and Hawaii. It's like we never left.

Katrina wasn't a big deal because the people of Pompeii were all wiped out by natural disasters too and totally unprepared.

What the fuck happened to Giuliani? I know he wasn't immensely popular in NYC but I thought he was rather well respected across the board. I remember reading a popular book that actually used him as a case study and his brilliant idea for getting rid of graffiti on the subway trains. He had some problems like all mayors of big cities do, but he seemed to have done a lot of good in the city over his tenure. He came across great after 9/11 and was something the city really seemed to need. Was sort of the politician who didn't act like one.

So has he always been this crazy? Or is this just an act because he knows the farther you go to the extreme and the dumber your message is the more attention/books you can sell? Heck, I remember thinking of voting for him before the primaries began and then heard him speak and was totally turned off. So is this normal for him or did he go through some massive change?

He's always come off like a nut, but the crazy ex-prosecutor schtick played very well in a city that was tired of crime and corruption. He did come in and straighten shit out. He didn't act like a politician, he acted like a grumpy New Yorker.

His support of Bush was his downfall. It was really rabid, even for a Republican. And terrorism/national security is just out of his league. He sounds like eloquent than Bush when he tries to talk about. He's a mayor.

I think he saw this as his path the be president of the United Staetes. (And in 2004 he may very well have been right)

Truthfully, I don't know what Dutch was saying. He should clarify his remark.

Remember that time you went out on a date with a dried up booger hanging from your nose? Yeah, so maybe you don't relive that on every date but goddamn if you don't at least check the mirror from now on to ensure it don't happen again.


Katrina wasn't a big deal because...wait...what?

Or what about the time you couldn't get your girlfriend to have sex, so you went home and looked at porn. Only, you accidentally hit the looking for men button, but for some strange reason it still did the trick that night. Sure you're not gay, but you make sure to look the other way in the gym shower just in case.

Yeah. FiveThirtyEight.com and HuffingtonPost.com haven't been talking about this situation or the polling on this race at all.

I shouldn't have to post things only from liberal sites to create discussion. Or maybe that is how it works given the posting leanings in this thread. I guess I expected more from some in this thread.

Somebody mentioned that our leaders have done a great job handling security in a post-911 world and somebody else mentioned that the efforts prior to 911 were sufficient. My interpretation was that Bush and Obama didn't need to do anything different than before 911? Of course, I would not agree with that. I used the surprise attacks of WWII as analogy...which I shouldn't have done because they are distracting to the current conversation.

Why is it that everytime a conservative mentions WWII the liberals always come back thinking about sucking dick? What the shit? Really...you lefties really go out of your way to try and get us to stop with the WWII talk.

No that wasn't about WWII, that was about the crazy booger analogy.

Here's some "stunning" news from the White House that the stimulus has created over 2 million new jobs...........

Job Stimulus Results: White House Claims 'Stunning' Two Million Jobs Saved Or Created

It was the link of the day on liberal sites, so I thought that would justify its posting in this thread.

I'm surprised no one in the thread had been talking about that yet.

I know this falls into the category of :deadhorse:...

but I haven't had my Sisyphus for breakfast yet this morning. It turns out you can post news from neutral sites, too- while I realize every site has some inherent bias, many try to actually stray towards the middle*. But I know that no matter where you post the link to, you'll have some nice, snarky message that bashes Obama or the left- thanks for being reliable.

*At the end of the day, that's what makes Fox News and many other fear mongers so genius in an evil sort of way. Your average liberal or moderate site will say "watch us because we're better at news than anyone else" while the right's message is more perverse: "watch us because you can't trust anyone else". It's a subtle but very important difference and why I just don't buy the Fox = CNN or MSNBC comparison. One tells you they are better but doesn't "prohibit" you from watching anything else while the other tries to create the echo chamber.

SI

Maybe I missed it, but no comment on Palin signing up for a multi-year contract with Fox?

Assuming for a moment she does plan to run for President, and this is (at least partly) an attempt to stay in front of people for the next two years, what's everyone's take on whether or not this would increase her electability? Are Americans ready to elect a talking head? Note that this is also relevant for Mike Huckabee.

Al Franken
Jesse Ventura

Does Ronald Reagan enter the equation here?

I largely shrugged, and I imagine even most Fox viewers did too. Heck maybe even Palin backers did as well. Everybody has to be somewhere, this happens to be her temporary somewhere.


Not sure whether that question applies here. Both Palin & Huckabee remain polticians who are basically temping as commentators. The question you've asked would apply moreso IMO to a professional commentator who decided to run for office, a Rush or a Chris Matthews, etc.

edit to add: I think the voters in California, Minnesota, and wherever the hell Franken lives have answered that one already.

Which, as has been stated numerous times, is not true either. The hot button topics are the ones I side with the Republicans on. I'd love to be talking about opening up gay marriage, full stem cell research, or the legalization of drugs like marijuana, but none of those are being pushed by Congress or the Administration currently (which is disappointing to me along with much of the liberal base). Instead, we're claiming job gains while Americans continue to lose jobs and push for a health care system that the majority of Americans are against.

As for neutral websites, list 'em out and I'll head right over and start posting non-partisan stories. I'm sure it's an enormous list of sites.

Good points, especially the Reagan one.

Edit: Having said that, it seems every presidential election cycle (at least in recent memory) there's always a phase of people focusing on about "experience". I was wondering to what extent simply having been a talking head for 2-4 year prior to the election in question (now that I think of it, it'll be even longer for Huckabee), would make this difficult.

I suppose a lot of it will depend on what issues the next campaign is run.

On a related note, I don't consider Venture or Franken to be terribly relevant because:

1. Minnesota is weird (and I've lived there) :D
2. I still feel in plenty of aspects the presidential election is different, obviously lagging further behind other elected offices in breaking new ground.

To be honest, I agree and I sort of figured this was why there hadn't been a comment from anyone. Which is fine.

I don't think anyone cares that much that she on FOX. It's a good platform for her, but outside of that, probably doesn't mean much.

Yet here we are, one day after two of the above issues were debated heavily in New Jersey, one passing and one not and I didn't see a peep from you. I love that you like to trot out those three every single time as "proof of your neutrality" yet you never post on those topics.

And you did nicely get in your stab at the Administration. Bravo. Again, we all expect nothing less.

SI

So, I guess the question some of us have, MBBF, is: where were you when the GOP was in power? Where were your posts of "It's concerning for the GOP in the Senate that..." or "You'd think the Bush admin might want to avoid this topic..."?

I mean, you've been registered since 2001, but not really active in political threads since what, the 2008 primaries? Maybe if you explain what spurred you to contribute we might understand your motivations a little better and give you the benefit of the doubt more.

Because otherwise your posts and your timing really paint you (and it's going on two years now) as a GOP "concern troll".

I honestly didn't know that something happened in New Jersey. I know everyone else in this thread is fully informed, but I come here to learn just as much as pass on information. I trot them out because I back the administration (or might be even more left than them) on all of those issues.

If you could post a link about the NJ stories from a neutral website, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not sure why I have to explain anything. I appreciate the standards that I'm held to in this thread. Let's be honest here. Painting people as a given role in political discussion is what partisan posters do best. It's probably why my stances on both sides of the political line given the topic are so baffling to most. Most people don't straddle that line.

You Honor. I submit People's Exhibit A as evidence.

Hey, it turns out that I agree with the GOP on some things more than the Democrats. I support the death penalty, I'm more in line with their immigration stance, and... well, I wanted to make a joke about how I also support Michael Steele having the GOP job here but it would dull the rest of the point.

I'd say fiscal policy, but, nah- they're not for real budget balancing, just for election year tax cut bribes and then cutting social services they don't like to pay for it and ignoring the military budget whereas I prefer the social programs remain in place and don't mind paying for it. And that turns out to be one of the reasons I'm a liberal. Not much to hide there, really. And, honestly, over the last few years, I've become moreso than when I started posting on this board, not from anything here but just from living life, in general.

But I also don't go around today claiming to be something I'm not and trying to pretend I have some neutrality so that my argument has more weight or something. That said, these things do sort themselves out- people know who is more or less one way or the other- but it does need to be pointed out when you keep trying to paint yourself as a persecuted innocent bystander when it's just not true.

SI

NJ Legislature approves medical marijuana bill - Yahoo! News
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...edName=topNews

No, the AP and Reuters aren't perfect but it has pretty much a boilerplate for these types of stories so it's not hideously slanted towards one side or the other.

SI

So I can't talk about WWII or boogers anymore...great, thanks alot.

So there goes that 18 paragraph screed you had been working on about the history of boogers during WWII ;)

SI

I think Huckabee's out of the picture after the clemency stuff.

I'll be perfectly honest. I think that's a load of shit. I'm REALLY tired of this belief that states or this nation has to justify the legalization through any 'medicinal' purposes. That pipeline is horribly abused and they're probably spending MORE time creating new administrative groups to work through what is legal and not legal, resulting in MORE government intervention. Just legalize the weed already. I've never smoked it and wouldn't if it was legalized, but it's ridiculous to not allow it in full at this point.