I <3 Kucinich.

:(

Yeah, the kind of "austerity measures" they're going to go through in Greece and elsewhere would never fly here. People say they want that shit, but in reality we're all too impatient and entitled (even those of us who think we aren't).

Not an issue I care about at all but if he changed to the pro-chocie crowd than it would make me like him even more.

I'm just talking about how you hold him up as being above the usual politicians, but he famously sold out to the "money and power" of the pro-choice lobby so he could run for president.

No doubt. I fear we are past the point of no return but spending more and more is just going to get us to the collapse faster and faster. It's much easier to blame Bush or blame Obama and to say maybe we need to cut some of these government programs or stop some of these wars or stop these corporate handouts but very few have the balls to say that we have to do all three. Who is going to win an election by proposing cutting spending, stopping war, and raising taxes?

will concede that. Let's just say that Paul (as I am sure there will be some issue that Paul has flip-flopped on as well) and Kucinich seem to be the people at the debates that don't just give the "Rah rah America, listen to what the other side does wrong while I offer no tangible solutions" answer to every question. I don't mind moving Kucinich a little lower than Paul. :)

EDIT: Believe me I think Kucinich has some really backwards plans but he seems to at least have solutions that Democrats should want and not "I will end this war" while just moving it to Afganistan and Pakistan.

Not sure but you might be an idiot.

View Poll Results: Who was the worst President in your lifetime thus far?

George W. Bush
-apoc-, ace1914, Apathetic Lurker, Arctus, Atocep, Autumn, AZSpeechCoach, bhlloy, Big Fo, boberot, Butter_of_69, Calis, chesapeake, Chubby, claphamsa, CleBrownsfan, clemsonfan, CrimsonFox, DaddyTorgo, Daimyo, Danny, Dark Cloud, dawgfan, DeToxRox, Dodgerchick, ds27, duckman, fantom1979, Fidatelo, Flasch186, flere-imsaho, Fonzie, gkb, GoSeahawks, GrantDawg, I. J. Reilly, INDalltheway, ISiddiqui, Izulde, jaygr, JetsIn06, johneh, JPhillips, JS19, Karlifornia, kcchief19, Kodos, korme, KWhit, larrymcg421, laser, Lathum, lerriuqs, lighthousekeeper, like a dog, LionsFan10, M GO BLUE!!!, MacroGuru, Marc Vaughan, Masked, McSweeny, MIJB#19, molson, MrKordell, NevStar, nol, Noop, PackerFanatic, panerd, Panthersfan75, path12, Peregrine, PineTar, Pyser, Qrusher14242, Racer, Radii, RainMaker, RendeR, rockboy70, Ronnie Dobbs2, Router Help, RPI-Fan, Saul Goode, Scoobz0202, Senator, Sgran, SirFozzie, Solecismic, sovereignstar, SportsDino, SteveBollea, Sublime 2, SunDevil, Swaggs, Telle, TheOhioStateUniversity, thesloppy, Thomkal, Tigercat, TLK, Toddzilla, TredWel, yacovfb

Ah. Well, then.

I do apologize. That was catastrophically stupid of me.

Guess I'll have to get you that check then, now. :D

That's all I wanted in the first place!!!! :)

I think a third party makes a lot of sense and I would love there to be one. Unfortunately the only examples I've got so far are Perot, Nader and the tea partiers -- all of which became crazy as batshit within six months.

Color me skeptical.

A parlimentary system is making more and more sense to me as time goes by. Jesus, England's got the liberals and conservatives working together. When do you think that's going to happen here again?

Throwing in extra parties could cause chaos with our current electoral system. You'd very likely have the elections decided by congress almost every single time, or you could have someone managing 35% in enough states to get 270 electoral votes. They could have less than 30% nationwide and be President.

Fair point. I obviously haven't thought the whole idea through. :)

Unless there's more common ground some day, hopefully never.
edit to add: Unless, of course, our left wingers find some common decency & suddenly discover common sense ;)

Hey, the Democrats and Republicans are in complete agreement that the two-party system is superior.

All of the examples you mentioned question the establishment. The establishment owns all of the media (mass media at least). Are you really sure they are all batshit crazy or are they really any different than whatever the CNN/Fox flavor of the month is? (Obama, Palin, etc) I guess perception is reality but I am sure if you attended some of these third party rallies you would see they are made up of mostly normal people who are pissed off like you. Of course the radicals will come out in droves, I am sure they probably go to GOP and Democrat rallies as well. I dunno unless you really have firsthand knowledge I would at least give them a shot.

Don't talk to me about the media. The failure of the media to do their job over the past thirty years is in my opinion one of the top three reasons that we are where we're at right now.

And yes, I have attended more than a few third party rallies in my life. Hell, I even attended some Libertarian ones. ;) I'll stand by my statement.

Well, you've always got that secession thing to fall back on. ;)

Rand Paul is an interesting guy and I'd love to see some Libertarian voices in both the House and Senate. But he's already backtracking on a lot of his libertarian beliefs and is morphing into just another politician. I mean he's against socialized medicine, but not Medicare.

It's cute to give speeches and stuff about how you're for small government. But winning elections and staying in power are another people. All these anti-big government people don't like it when you tell them you're taking their government social security and health care from them.

I have noticed the attacks have really started up in the press. (EDIT: I know, I know. Tuesday I was bitching about him not being in the news. I should be happy that he is now) Going back to the race baiting like they always do with his father. (Buried somewhere in the Rand Paul is a Racist headline is that he doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act for private business. Not sure I have met many who do.) If he is backtracking on some other major stuff that is kind of sad. I am a big fan of his dad's and would love to be a fan of his too. You won the primary because you weren't mainstream don't be convinced that's what you need to do to win this election, it's the exact opposite of what you need to do! The tea party is really starting to follow the famous Gandhi quote (not quite the same situation but with the spending the way it is it could get just as bad!) though. It will be fun to watch Republicrats and Demolicans unite to try and save their asses when these guys start winning their seats.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

You haven't met many people who believe in the Civil Rights Act for private businesses??

Where (and in what year) the fuck do you people live??? WTF!!!!!!

Yawn. Hasn't this topic been done here 1000 times? Go talk to Skydog if you want. It seems like all of the faux outrage is gone when a black guy says it.

EDIT: Though if you google "civil rights act for private business" the first 20 results are Rand Paul. Sure no media manipulation going on in this country at all. :rolleyes:

I thought it was funny...

Rodent scurries by as Obama lauds Wall Street vote - Yahoo! News

Paul only got about a quarter of the overall vote in the KY primaries. Let's at least see a Tea Party candidate win a general election before comparing them to Ghandi.

Ron Paul and Reagan staffer Bruce Bartlett on Paul:

Yeah because that's what I did. I know it's hard for you when the typical Democrat/Republican playbook of Obama and Bush bashing back and forth doesn't work out but you can surely do better than that can't you?

Yes, bashing both Republicans and Democrats is much more morally pure.

You're as partisan as anyone in this thread you just root for a different jersey.

Nah, I honestly couldn't tell you one Libertarian outside of Bob Barr. (and my guess he was just using the party in 2008 to run for president and probably isn't with the party anymore) I like a lot of their ideas and find that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (Republicans) match my ideas best but I am hardly partisan. i.e. committed to a party. You are correct that I am firmly against the shit we have in Washington. But no reason to do anything about it. In 2015 we can talk again about how it's too late to really do anything anyways, then again in 2020, then in 2025. The government is already too big I give up! Spend more! Spend us out of this mess please!

Hey, you never said we could have a real pony :(

You're entitled to argue whatever floats your boat, but let's not pretend you haven't been one of the main supporters of the Libertarian Party in this thread.

I flirted with Libertarianism during that time in one's life where you try and get past the bullshit you've been brought up to believe and start to figure out what you really do believe.

My conclusion was something like this. Any time you have a clear belief system that promotes otherwise perfectly avoidable suffering of fellow human beings you lose me. Plain and simple.

It is a utopian dream that is absolutely unworkable in our age and society. Name one social ill that an unfettered free market is able to fix. You can't.

What you said. I did the same thing - flirted with it, espoused it for a little while, even voted that way when I was 18...19. But yeah...it's unworkable.

LOL. So the Utopian dream is one where I live for myself and hope that my neighbors do too? While a realistic one is world peace or no guns or conquering the middle East and solving the oil crisis or no abortions because of law or 100% literacy from government run schools or spending money to get out of debt. You're right Libertarians are so unrealistic and living in a dream world.

Does the federal government require a handicap ramp on your ivory tower? Please tell me more about when I grow up? What don't I understand about the real world and King Obama?

Don't be a douche. Other people are allowed to have their opinions - you haven't discovered some magical "elixir of perfect politics" because you're a libertarian.

What about a fully grown man who gets kicked off a football message board for acting like a 14-year old and thinks he can trick everyone by coming back under a different handle?

So your discovery at age 18 of why my opinion is wrong wasn't you being a douchebag it was just an opinion? Got it.

Tell me where I said that.

You're free to believe whatever you want. But don't go around acting like you've got the answer and nobody else is wise enough to see it.

Exactly. IT IS MY OPINION THAT I FORMED AT THAT TIME THAT IT IS UNWORKABLE.

You're free to come to a different conclusion. Doesn't mean that either of us is right in the end.

Right. You didn't throw the 18 or 19 yeard old part in just to be a dick about it. Got it, you just wanted to make sure all of us were clear on the dates of when you made discoveries.

Actually...yes.

You have quite the "Libertarian persecution complex" going on lately hmm?

The thing is, he isn't that much different. He's just like your typical Republican or Democrat. Look at his platform, it's not that much different than the rhetoric you see by just about any politician on the right. The one major difference is that he's against the Iraq war. He's a libertarian only in image.

I would vote for the guy because while I think some of his ideas are crazy, they are crazy to the point that he'll never be a deciding vote on the issue. But his votes on spending and other things that are close will be good overall.

As for the race-baiting, I agree that it's horrible. People try and portray those against the private sector portion of the Civil Rights Act as racist when in fact they just don't feel the government should be legislating morality. I wish he would just say that and stop pussy footing around. But he's running in a party that wants the government to legislate morality, so he can't.

From the BArtlett essay posted above:

Sigh. If only ... :(

Umm ... he's "100% pro-life", he "opposes all federal bailouts of private industry", on defense he believes "When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted ...", he believes "Lowering taxes gives working men and women the ability to take control of their own lives", he's pro-veteran, he's pro-homeschool rights, he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, he says he'll "fight to balance the budget and dramatically reduce spending".

Other than his take on health care (and apparently Iraq, I haven't read his comments on that in detail), how far outside the GOP mainstream are his actual positions?

Let's be honest here, winning a GOP primary is a feat that has some pretty narrow parameters you're going to have to be within. I'm not being critical of that, we both know you aren't going to find me being too upset by narrowly defined boundaries of acceptability. To pretend that he won because he's some sort of socio-political revolutionary is just fucking silly.

That's Google's algorithm being influenced by frequency of searches, immediacy, and link backs. That's not a sign of a vast bipartisan media conspiracy.

Such a thing might conceivably exist but what you cite isn't evidence of it.

That's OK: I have. :D

Keep the Senate as it is, but convert the House to a body that is elected by a national vote based on proportional representation, with no more individual districts.

Any party can run in the national election and they put a slate of candidates up who would take the seats they end up being allotted. As an example:

Republicans get 37% of the vote, they get 161 seats
Democrats get 32% of the vote, they get 139 seats
Libertarians get 15% of the vote, they get 65 seats
Greens get 10% of the vote, they get 44 seats
Socialists get 3% of the vote, they get 13 seats
Federalists get 2% of the vote, they get 9 seats
States' Rights Party gets 1% of the vote, they get 4 seats

Republicans form governing coalition with Libertarians for a 226-seat majority.


:p

Interesting. But if the Senate stays the same that body (at least for awhile) is likely to remain mostly two party. So say you have this governing coalition of Repub/Libertarian and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Nothing could pass both bodies. Though of course there are some who would consider that a victory. :)

A key benefit of a nationally-elected PR system would be immediate relevance for some third (or fourth, or fifth) parties. As it stands now, a vote for someone other than D or R is essentially a protest vote, and so even if you, say, really agree with the Greens, you probably won't vote for them over a Democrat, especially in a tight race.

In this system you can, especially since Greens would likely ally with Democrats on more issues, you're not necessarily voting to the benefit of Republicans by voting Green (from the opposite side, substitute Libertarians for Greens and Democrats for Republicans).

Later, if non-D/R politicians get press and reputations, you might even see a few of them run, and win, Senate seats. So you get more diversity of opinion overall.

Except that there's a great deal of the country (I'd dare say a majority of those who actually have an opinion) who don't see that as a "benefit".

Truth is, a lot of us don't believe that most of those fringe elements have any actual relevance, and especially don't think a system should be jury rigged in order to create an artificial relevance for them.

edit to add: Further, if someone thinks "special interest groups" have too much sway now, wait 'til they get a load of the deals cut between the Vegetarian Party & the Dem's (or any of the dozens of other possible combinations on either side of the aisle).

I disagree. I'd suspect even a majority of the supporters of the two big parties are dissatisfied with the party they support and would prefer to support a party more aligned to their specific interests, especially if said party would actually have some relevance on a national level.

In a way, it's a bit of transference (on this specific subject). Instead of voting for a Republican or a Democrat and hoping they share, and promote, some of your personal agenda/ideals, you vote for a party that's closely aligned with your agenda/ideals and let them wheel and deal for those ideals with other diverse parties in this national legislative body.

In my view, the creation of coalition governments actually restrains this. To use the example of the Republicans forming a coalition with the Libertarians, the latter may want to abolish the FDA, but the former isn't going to do that, though they may agree to a restructuring of how the FDA conducts oversight and require faster tracks for drug approval.

Forgive me if this has been suggested, but it just occurred to me, and I wondered what everyone thought.

What if votes could be given out by percentage? Meaning an individual vote counts for 100% of that person's vote, but if he/she likes, he can assign a percentage of it to different parties.

Take me for instance. I am a fiscal Republican with some Libertarian leanings and a handful of social Democratic leanings. If I had the option, I might assign 60% of my vote to Republican, 30% to Libertarian and 10% to Democratic.

Obviously, we couldn't actually use percentages, because voting has to be the lowest common denominator (the stupider, the better). But you could tell people they get 10 vote "points" (each point equals 10% of their vote), and can assign those points however they wish. Even stupid people play enouh video games to understand points.

This, IMO, would go hand in hand with the national Congressional election put up above, although it would be impractical on a local level (so that would presumeably stay the same as currently).

Nice theory, except that you can't vote for 5 Representatives from 5 different parties that are closely aligned with your 10 major interests. You only get one Rep. Getting someone to work on 7 or 8 of your top 10 is why most of us eventually end up voting R or D (excluding family history & its influence on voting patterns).

What you're talking about only has a shot of working better (in terms of attempting to get your p.o.v. represented at the table) if you're a 1 or 2 issue person. I don't believe there's actually that many of those. You can fail to get someone's support by getting a key issue wrong much more readily than you can gain their support by getting only one key issue right IMO.

How many issues are actually strong enough to generate that kind of isolated issue party? I can see a Right-to-Life Party getting seats, I can see a Green Party getting seats, but don't see (pulling some random example of a hot button that isn't a dominant driving force) a Stem-Cell-Research Party gaining enough traction to pull even one seat.

Which is the basic construction of what happens within the two parties we already have now.

But if I'm given the choice of five parties for whom to cast my vote versus two, surely the likelihood of being able to choose a party more closely aligned to my principles is higher?

Imagine, for example, the UK without the Lib Dems (and England doesn't even use a PR system). Most of the current Lib Dem membership would be holding their nose considerably more to vote for Labour or the Tories.

Here's my contention: if you surveyed U.S. voters after an election where they had a choice of Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Green (and all parties would actually get seats if they got enough votes) versus an election where they had a choice of Democrat and Republican, I think you get considerably more satisfied voters in the first scenario than in the second.

Here's my other contention: the wheeling-and-dealing that would happen between parties in a PR system to agree on legislation would be (actually, is) considerably more transparent than the wheeling-and-dealing that happens currently intra-party in the U.S. system. If, say, the Greens vote with the Democrats to pass a bill on oil drilling, for example, they're going to have to explain to their constituents why (perhaps they got major concessions on safety and oversight requirements). In our current system, this bill probably passes because the "greener" Democrats were bought off with earmarks.

NOTE: I'm not expecting people in a PR system to act like Utopian hippies. I'm just saying there are a number of benefits, and one of those benefits is a more transparent legislative process and another is a better marketplace of ideas. And a third is a lot less earmarks for specific legislative districts.

I disagree. Intra-party compromise, especially in the U.S. Congress, is not driven by ideological compromise inasmuch as it's driven by vote-trading (which includes voting for other peoples' earmarks).

You seem to be suggesting that there's a substantial difference between "ideological compromise" and "vote-trading", whereas I would strongly argue that they're almost exactly the same thing in DC, regardless of what scenario you're electing the reps under.

Eventually it boils down to "I'll give you this if you give me that" ... which is what we've got already as much so (even moreso) intra-party as inter-party.

Not at all, unless you're talking about parties with full agendas as opposed to these single/few issue minority parties that seem to be the most likely scenario.


Maybe this is a key distinction that we're dealing with here. I might not argue strongly against your suggestion of "more satisfied voter" after such an election. But I'd argue strongly against the suggestion that they'd be more satisfied with the outcome of the next Congress.

OK, I see what you're saying. We may have to agree to disagree (shocker, I know :D ).

What I would contend is that pretty much all of the "vote-trading" that goes on currently boils down to sending money to specific districts, no matter how the people involved might try to explain it. Such as Mary Landrieu voting for HCR for $300 million.

In my proposed system, the "vote-trading" is more along the lines of the Greens agreeing to vote for an oil driling bill after extracting, say, safety regulations and a promise to buy more land for federal parks out of the Democrats.

To me, there's a difference between those two mechanics, but I can see how you would disagree. In my defense, I think the real-world experience of PR systems supports my contention.

100% YES. The experience of PR, when implemented, has been that single/few-issue parties tend to get single-digit percentages of votes. This is why, for instance, the Green Parties in Europe have full agendas (in comparison to their narrowly-focused US counterparts): they realized they needed to do this to get relevant representation in various parliaments.

Plus, I'd expect if you made the change today in the U.S., the first few elections would be 90% Dem/Rep with a bunch of fringe parties splitting the other 10%, but over time parties with broader appeal would arise from those fringe parties (not perhaps 50% broad appeal, but certainly 20% broad appeal).


Absolutely. Goes without saying.

Edit: The advantage here is that while people tend to not be 100% happy with coalition governments in a PR system, they tend not to hate them outright and change tends to be more gradual. This as opposed to a two-party system where if one party gets on a roll they just ram a ton of stuff through and a significant minority (or sometimes even a majority) of the populace hates it with a passion. The late periods of the previous two governments in Britain (Brown's Labour and Major's Conservative) are excellent examples, as is Delay's Congress (or O'Neill's back in the 80s).

Rand Paul is Bubba Wheels!

The biggest experience I have with coalition government was my time spent in Turkey. Everybody there loved the concept of multiple parties, but hated the coalitions that formed. They wished they only had two parties with the winner take all format so they could get shit accomplished. The grass is always greener, I suppose.

What if my business wants to only accept Ameros?

When is he going to address the thermite that was used to take down the towers and how the Bilderberg Group was behind the recession? AMERICA DEMANDS ANSWERS!

AHHHHHHHHHH, but that's not American. Its too much like those 'other countries' across the pond and we know that anything they do is socialist, failed, and BAD.

I love when people try to use 9-11 conspiracy theories, that I have never seen any serious politician endorse, as the reason why any criticism of the US government outside of what we are taught in public schools is basically nonsense from the same group of "nutjobs". We know America is the greatest and would never take part in any disinformation or lies about the corruption that those nutcases claim exists in many parts of the federal government.

Didn't you know that all of those conspiracy theories are false? Why? The government says so! It has always been clear to me that Oswald acted alone, the government and my teachers said so. Let them clear up other theories at this site... (I tried to find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Tuskegee experiments on here. I thought those were all just misinformation from anti-government "nuts" as well)

Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation - America.gov

I also found the readings on the Economy especially helpful...


Did you know the idea that rich and powerful people will try to make money at the expense of their fellow Americans is nothing more than Marxist ideology? Thanks US government! LOL. When someone showed me the above excerpt I thought it was from the Onion.

The Amero is basically another bullshit debunked conspiracy. Just like 9/11 being an inside job, fake moon landing, Billderberg Group, NWO, and on and on. Run a search on Ameros and tell me what sites come up. The same ones that are talking about the stuff I mentioned.

This isn't about the government lying, it's about crazy conspiracy theories with no substance.

He may not be a 9/11 truther, but he does subscribe to some wild conspiracy theories. From an Alex Jones radio show:

where do these people get these stupid ideas? i mean seriously - are they just gullible idiots?? I don't get it.

Interesting read. Dr. Doom is leaning towards a double dip recession barring a major change in gov't debt worldwide.

Nouriel Roubini said said the bubble would burst and it did. So what next? - Telegraph

Couldn't remember if we had a specific Arizona thread, but this just in:

Arizona has asked the Federal Govt. for UAV's (Unmanned Ariel Vehicles - Predator drones, etc) to patrol the border, along with additional helicoptors.

Arizona to White House: Send us helicopters, recon drones - May. 24, 2010

Wouldn't surprise me - this is what our smartest client (money manager) has been saying for months, and they were also right about the first bubble (in fact they called it and positioned for it in mid-2006, and held that position until it did burst). It's almost common-sense.

I want to know if they'll be armed with Hellfire missiles. That'll spice it up in a hurry.

What the hell is a UAV gonna do? I say we just put up an actual security fence with IDS capability and see if the #'s of illegals drop.

Wait, isn't that the main reason Arizona passed that law was because the federal government WASN'T helping? And now they are asking for help from the same people they are accusing of not helping to begin with. WTF??

I think it would be a great opportunity to make use of our stockpile of cluster munitions/sub-munitions. Cheaper than Hellfire & longer lasting :)

Good lord! Mermaid Predator Drones? Singing and blowing up everything?!!!1!

bah...you got me. spelling fail due to brain broken.

Since this story was previously mentioned in this thread.........

James O’Keefe: No Felony « Liveshots

I don't get this at all. Did we elect a president or a low-rate comedian?

Obama Heckles His Heckler At Boxer Fundraiser

Stop thinking that you need a good comeback if someone heckles you at an appearance. Act presidential and just ignore it. Let the crowd deal with the loudmouth.

Also, it was noted on several sites yesterday that the press secretary privately told White House pool reporters to stop asking so many questions about BP. What exactly is the purpose of that?

Some REALLY frustrating figures coming out of Recovery.gov. The amount spent per job created is just mind-boggling in New Hampshire.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/2...new-hampshire/

I will give credit to the administration for being open with their records, even if it shows how miserably the stimulus has been mismanaged.

Well the source is right-biased obviously, but those numbers match up reasonably with other stats I've seen. Realize this is only the money spent directly on supposed job creation projects, it doesn't include spending on benefits, tax cuts, or other random ass stuff that was included in the stimulus.

This is where my 'million dollars per job' estimate came from in another post I made before. If you subtract out the non-jobs stimulus spending, the statistics across the nation are in the multiple hundred thousands per job, which is even more sickening when you see the salaries for these jobs. Like I also previously mentioned in a post, most software companies (which are high margin to begin with) would be happy to have 200-300K revenue per employee. They'd consider that high growth rate money.

We've spent more than that on average for jobs that pay less then such companies would generally pay... someone is taking a massive cut for themselves in the picture.

This is why I favor an employment based credit, put a multiplier on the cost of each job to make labor on average cheaper while individual salaries remain constant or growing, and you get your subsidy effect in a way that is game theory unexploitable (to get the 'cut' you need to perform an action that creates the intended result).

I'm also sure that I could create a lot more jobs at a lower price than 300-500K per job. Find the biggest messes that need to be cleaned up in America, buy a good quality shovel and some Windex, and I'm sure you can employ a lot of well paid mess cleaners and get some things fixed around here (power grid, roads, etc... apparently road contracts require several times each workers salary to be feasible.... I thinks I can underbid that easily enough).

Didn't you get the memo? American citizens won't take jobs like that, it's why we simply have to let all the illegals stay.

The opinion in the post I put up is right-biased, but the source of the numbers are Recovery.gov and the state of New Hampshire, which should not have any bias.

Shush, MBBF doesn't read and post the daily talking points at Michelle Malkin's site.

Let me guess. The great Michelle Malkin (who you obviously read more than me) posted this information, so therefore I must read her site.

While I fully understand that I posted a link from a right-leaning website, the data comes straight from the White House. Would it kill you to realize the guy is a flaming conservative and just view the information as it is? Go to Recovery.gov (which I also mentioned) and view it without the commentary if that's what you need to do to realize that your tax dollars were not used well in this situation.

I'm not arguing the data, I said from the start the stimulus was nothing more than all the Democratic pet projects that had built up over a decade.

Just that you trumpeted the fact you had never heard of Michelle Malkin despite posting her talking points on a daily basis and then posting one off her actual site.

The problem is that the site you linked to is so biased, that I don't trust any information I see on it (I'd feel the same for a site biased to the extreme left). When evaluating statistics you can't ignore the context and the author who is presenting them. All the available data can never be presented in a limited space, so the author choices of what data to include and what data to exclude are critical. With this author, I have no confidence he made these choices in a reasonable manner. Consequently, I stopped reading after 15 seconds.

It's a hate site. Stormfront for politics.

I'd want to know if all the stimulus money has been handed out so far. How accurate the jobs creation statistics are and a slew of other things.

Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachman and Ann Coulter...notice you never see all 3 of them in the same place at the same time?

The problem with "cleanup" type jobs is that they're not sustainable, and they don't improve the GDP. You want to try to create jobs that result in long-term GDP growth and will be around indefinitely.

But as a shorter-term thing I don't disagree that it can often be useful.

I've always said trying to track jobs is a fool's errand. However, I don't think you should get too bent out of shape over Recovery.org, as it certainly doesn't look very accurate. Click on a few of the projects and it's pretty clear that the reported jobs number is nearly useless. The NH DOT got about 750,000 to pave a section of road and said that created .15 jobs. A private company got 65,000 and said it created .06 jobs. How do you create six one hundredths of a job?

According to most economists and the CBO the stimulus has so far done exactly what was expected, lift GDP. That's got it's own problems, but it's much easier to measure than job numbers.

For somebody that rails on the worthlessness of most people.....

Just in case anyone was wondering what the POTUS was doing this morning, he just sent me an e-mail...........

Yeah, I'll bet he spent a lot of time on that.

When you put together the time it took to research it, to write it, to edit it, to enter all those email addresses and then hit send, I bet Obama has spent the past two or three days doing nothing but this resolution.

Outrageous.

Worse yet, I don't think all of the LGBT U.S. citizens received that e-mail. How they hell are they going to know it's their month???????

So is AMC going to show Victor/Victoria all month long?

The 2 posts with odd (mocking?) punctuation about an issue you claim to be in favor of (gay rights and gay marriage) are duly noted, MBBF.

I'm sure it was just a typo or all in playful fun. And I'm sure you weren't picking up on the meme about how Obama is doing something other than watching the oil geyser 24/7 that even made the Daily Show last night. I'm probably just mistaken there.

SI