We keep getting reminded in the comments left here by conservatives and by cons in general that the Democrats now “own it”. In light of the fact that we run the White House, Senate, and House, we’re responsible.
DUH
That goes to the very heart of the difference between the left and the right. The right likes to campaign, and when they are successful they govern by the same simple slogans they campaign with. Then they’re totally shocked when praying to Tax Cut Jesus, weakening our infrastructure, and following the foreign policy instincts of the insane leads to a mess.
By nature, liberals are wonks. We like governing. And while that traditionally has led to campaigns where we put brains ahead of heart, it also leads to people running the government with a vested interest in its performance for the citizenry.
On the right, that’s called radicalism.
This post nails it O-dub. Your resident trolls scream “You own it now!” as if that’s a bad thing for recently elected Dems including our new president.
Yes, the Dems own it. And if they screw it all up, they deserve to be pilloried.
However, it’s going to take a little time to undo eight years of Chimpy McBunnypants. And it would help if the Republicans could have made suggestions for the stimulus bill beyond “Tax cuts for the rich” but honestly, who needs ‘em? They’re the party that hates government, and Americans have decided, increasingly, that they shouldn’t be allowed to govern. No big surprise.
So yes, if something as awful as 9/11 happens again, don’t expect President Obama to promote his national security advisor to be Secretary of State. Don’t expect him to whine “It’s a hard, hard job whahhh!” in 2012 when he trounces whatever ill-begotten candidate the GOP pukes up (I’m thinking Romney, but for the sake of humor I’m hoping it’s Palin). Don’t expect him to watch a national disaster destroy a major American city and have him blame state and local officials.
The buck stops here. Responsiblity and accountability are back, thank god. And more generally, decisions of governance based on the good of the nation and its people rather than scoring political points.
I would like to point out that in 2010 things will be worse than they are now. That’s just the nature of the beast. Things will bottom out in 2009, show some signs of getting better in 2010, but 2011 things should be recovering nicely, and by 2012 Obama will be celebrating his re-election thanks to a economy that will be as strong as it was before Bush took over.
O-Dub: By nature, liberals are wonks. We like governing.
Thomas Paine: “That government is best which governs least.”
Yes, Oliver, you nailed it. Speaking strictly for myself, that is precisely why I’m not a liberal.
Here in New Hampshire, we have a State Senate of 24 and a State House of 400. And their pay rate is $100 a year. (Plus mileage and expenses.) We do that because we don’t want a professional legislature. We want lawmakers who have to have real jobs, who have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. That’s not guaranteed by the pay rate (we tend to have a disproportionate number of professionals and home-makers and independently wealthy), but by and large it helps.
Also, the large number of members means that there is a very good chance that most of their constituents will know them personally. (Nationally, each Representative has 500,000-600,000 constituents; in New Hampshire, the ratio is closer to 3,000 to 1.
I don’t LIKE a government made up of people who like governing. I want a government run by people who’d rather be doing something productive with their lives, but feel a sense of duty and obligation to take some time out of their lives and serve their country.
That ain’t the party of Obama and O-Dub. No, they’re the party that “likes governing.”
Governing is about power. It’s about controlling people. It’s about deciding what people can and can not do. And there was this guy named Lord Acton who once made a famous observation about the nature and effect of power…
J.
Yes, liberals in power have done such horrible power-grabbing things like making sure elderly people have a quasi-livable income after their retired, that poor and old people have some form of health care, and people who are not white have equal rights. Horrible, horrible grabs of power!
BTW, much of what government does is “produtive.” Unless you build all your own roads and teach your own children.
Fuck that, I plan to use the Reps Clinton defense against them. I’ll call it the Bush defense.
J.G.Thayer: “Thomas Paine: ‘That government is best which governs least.’
Yes, Oliver, you nailed it. Speaking strictly for myself, that is precisely why I’m not a liberal.”
It’s not about most or least, it’s about competent and incompetent.
And those who think governing isn’t ‘productive work’ are less likely to try and make government work. We’ve seen that’s true over the past 8 years.
If you are a politician and you don’t think government can work for the people, then the only reason to be a politician is to try and make government work for you.
This is bad.
“Governing is about power. It’s about controlling people. It’s about deciding what people can and can not do.”
The Republican party is the party of control. They are the ones who want to make decisions for you. Doctor assisted suicide? Hell no. Same sex marriage? Hell no.
When Ashcroft took over as AG, do you know what his number one priority was? Stopping porn. Not Child Porn, but porn.
Liberals say: “You are not allowed to use lead in household paints, because studies shows it can be harmful, especially to kids.”
Conservatives say: “You are not allowed to sell vibrators, because you are causing moral decay!”
Yeah, Strowbridge, liberals are all about freedom of choice. As long as it relates to sex. In everything else, “choice” gets severely restricted.
Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle? Hell, no. If I can even find a manufacturer willing to make the vehicle I want, I’ll get taxed and harassed for exercising my choice. (Here’s a hint: the people who burned down the Hummer dealership in California probably didn’t vote for McCain.)
Can parents choose which school to send their children to? Absolutely — as long as they don’t mind still paying for that public education they won’t be getting.
Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!
Can people choose to go without health insurance? For now, yes — but that’s on the agenda.
Can people choose whether or not to join a union without some union thug or corporate weasel looking over their shoulder? Again, yes for now — but it’s on the agenda, too.
Yeah, some of these choices have good and bad answers. Well, guess what? The right to make bad choices is part and parcel of freedom. Protecting people from “bad choices” is what parents and nannies do.
Not governments.
Unless, of course, you’re so feeble-minded and weak-willed that you NEED someone to make your choices for you, and to protect you from making mistakes.
No wonder that you folks are so happy to proclaim that “the grownups are in charge now.” It means that you can go back to being babies and letting Mommy and Daddy make all your decisions for you.
J.
SUV’s are declining not because the Fed said so, but because nobody wants to buy them any longer. Companies tend to try and make things that are in demand.
People with money can send their kids to school wherever they want. Your taxes still go to public schools because there’s a need for those without means to get an education and become wage-earners.
Your 2nd Amendment rights? Do you have a clean criminal and mental health history? You can own and purchase guns for sport, hunting, and self-defense. Whaddaya want, a Howitzer?
Unions? UNIONS? Unions have been on the decline for decades. Serious question: Have you ever, personally, been forced to join one? Didn’t think so.
But as I’ve mentioned, I’m glad you got the health-care you needed in the form of my tax dollars. And no, I’ll never stop mentioning this because it’s a clear indication of just how hypocritical you are. You take hand-outs when you need them, but you argue that nobody else would ever truly benefit from them.
You’re a sad little guy, Jay. Hope you decide to come out of that basement someday and smell the fresh air. The Republican party is the party of government control over your personal life. It’s the party that thinks a president can over-ride the law and spy on you, violating your 4th Amendment rights. It’s the party that thinks an American citizen can be detained with a trial or due process.
Quite simply, the Republican party hates America and what it stands for. And now it’s effectively on life support, and America regaining its strength, pride, and global dominance. No thanks to shills like you, of course.
with = without. oops.
I would like to point out that in 2010 things will be worse than they are now.
That was why we were told we needed this stimulus package, because things were that bleak. If, as you say, the economy continues it’s downturn despite the stimulus, then the stimulus has by definition failed.
I can just see it now:
Economic downturn in September 2001: It’s Bush’s fault!!
Economic downturn in May 2011: It’s Bush’s fault!!!!
J.G.Thayer: “Yeah, Strowbridge, liberals are all about freedom of choice. As long as it relates to sex. In everything else, “choice” gets severely restricted.”
You, like the people you voted for, are a joke.
“Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle? Hell, no. If I can even find a manufacturer willing to make the vehicle I want, I’ll get taxed and harassed for exercising my choice. (Here’s a hint: the people who burned down the Hummer dealership in California probably didn’t vote for McCain.)”
Two points…
1.) Fuel mileage standards are not taking away freedoms, nor is paying more taxes for using more of a limited resource.
2.) Didn’t you complain about someone calling Adolf Hitler’s parents Republicans?
“Can parents choose which school to send their children to? Absolutely — as long as they don’t mind still paying for that public education they won’t be getting.”
Again, paying taxes is not taking away freedoms. Hell, I have no kids, does that mean I shouldn’t have to pay for schools I’m not using?
“Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!”
There are limits in the 2nd Amendment. Now, we can argue what limits those are, but there are some we should agree on. For instance, violent felons shouldn’t have guns. However, we have to check everyone to make sure those violent felons don’t get guns.
“Can people choose to go without health insurance? For now, yes — but that’s on the agenda.”
It’s like driving without having car insurance. Or do you think that being mandatory is also taking away your freedom?
By the way, mandatory health insurance lowers the price for everyone. And soon it won’t matter, because the government will take over and do it better and for less money.
“Can people choose whether or not to join a union without some union thug or corporate weasel looking over their shoulder? Again, yes for now — but it’s on the agenda, too.”
Here’s a hint, Mr.Thayer, the people arguing against the Employee Free Choice Act are lying to you. Union thugs are a thing of the past. However, people being fired for talking about unionizing is not.
“Yeah, some of these choices have good and bad answers. Well, guess what? The right to make bad choices is part and parcel of freedom. Protecting people from ‘bad choices’ is what parents and nannies do.”
Ummm… Did you read what you wrote? Your summation bears little resemblance to what came previously.
Making bad choices would be like smoking pot… Oops, that’s something Republicans are a lot more likely to want to crack down on that Democrats.
Making sure there’s corporations are regulated has nothing to do with being a ‘Nanny State.’ Corporations have more power than individuals, so the government has to step in and level the playing field. You know, to ‘promote the general welfare’ of the people.
Jaim, I dunno why I’m bothering to take you seriously — it’s obviously you don’t even take yourself seriously. Or you have the short-term memory of a parakeet.
About SUVs: recall a couple of years ago, when they were all the rage. They were also the cause of a lot of rage from liberals, including being cited repeatedly as a cause for increasing CAFE standards and the vandalizing of them.
About unions: look up the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, where employees will be granted the “right” to choose or reject a union in the presence of union “organizers,” dispensing with such silly concepts as secret ballots.
About the 2nd Amendment: which side were most liberals on in the Heller case? What did Obama say on a questionnaire asking if he supported an absolute ban on handguns? Or about the idea of banning gun shops from within five miles of schools, churches, parks, or any other sign of civilization?
Let me toss in seat belts. I am a seat belt militant: I wear them all the time. If you ride with me, you wear them or get out. But if some idiots want to refuse to wear them, that’s grounds for a cop to pull you over and fine you.
Same with motorcycle helmets. I think you’re a frigging moron if you refuse to wear them. I also don’t think that “being a frigging moron” ought to be against the law. (Hence your continuing freedom.) Those who want to choose to go helmetless, for whatever reason? NOT ALLOWED in most states.
Here in New Hampshire, we have no seat belt laws or helmet laws. And I see plenty of morons who reject them. I look at them and shake my head every time.
But I don’t think there oughta be a law to make them stop acting like the morons they are.
I don’t need the government to tell me to buckle up, wear a helmet, stop smoking, sit up straight, and mind my manners.
I don’t need grownups to be in charge. I am a grownup.
Now run along and have Mommy change your diaper again. You stink.
J.
Shorter Jay: I’ve obviously been proven to be a fraud once again, but let me cut and paste these talking points.
You want an SUV? Go buy one. You want a gun? Go buy one. You want to shriek and pee your pants and change the subject to motorcycle helmet laws? (Wha?) Your prerogative. You want me to talk about how great New Hampshire is? (I’ve been there once, and it was beautiful.) You want me to prove once again that a Republican talking-point machine like yourself is incapable of convincing anyone of anything? Yeah, let’s do that too.
Want to talk about how you’re alive because of an expensive government hand-out that you would deny to your fellow Americans? Yeah, now we’re on to something.
Please try and learn to speak some other language other than fail, k?
Man, Jaim, you just can’t stop the stupid, can you?
The whole point was “freedom” and “choice.” I cited a whole bunch of cases where your side doesn’t like “choice,” and wants to protect us from making “bad” choices.
For some reason you keep repeating the bullshit that I want to “deny my fellow Americans” the health care I received. I’ve said repeatedly, my dear little fuckwit, that I do NOT want to change the system that saved my life in my hour of need. It is YOU that want to revamp the entire system — running the risk of destroying it in the name of making it “better.”
And the last time you “proved” something, Jaim, was when you admitted that you don’t bother to answer my points when they’re inconvenient, you just interpret what I “meant” and argue based on things I never said and never would say. That proved you to be the complete and utter asswipe you are.
Well done, sir. I doff my hat.
J.
Repubs cause problems. Democrats fix them.
because the government will take over and do it better and for less money.
Has this ever happened anywhere in any field?
Whatevs, Jay. I’m a liberal dude on a liberal blog posting my liberal views.
You’re a deeply hypocritical con who is still alive due to “socialism” in the form of my tax dollars providing you with a required medical procedure. You don’t just troll, but actively attempt to get “firsties” on every post possible on a moderate to liberal blog. You lash out and accuse us liberals of being nanny-state bed-wetters, so I’ve asked you (and ask you again now) to tell us just what it is you do for a living. Are you a small business owner who pays decent, home-affording wages to others? No? Hmm. Here’s my shocked face.
You’re the perfect embodiment of your own failed party and ideology. You have these great big Ayn Randian fantasies about capitalist He-men brought low by socialist pussies, but lo and behold, you couldn’t even afford to pay for your own medical procedures to keep yourself alive, nor keep a job at which you’d have received adequate health insurance. So what happened next?
And for anyone else, I understand. The American medical system is really fucked up, and costs are entirely out of whack with what people make. (Even very wealthy people.)
But for you — my goodness, for you it’s just another day of screaming and peeing yourself over things that you literally cannot understand.
Sad, shrill, and totally incapable of understanding the reality that surrounds him. And by all objective standards, a complete fucking hypocrite.
You do your party proud, Jay. You really do.
Please stay healthy. And if you don’t, well, you’re lucky that you’ve got a Democrat as your president now and will continue to do so for the next eight years at least. We (speaking as a Democrat) don’t see helping others in need as a weakness, but rather the most important of strengths. Maybe you’ll understand this basic concept someday, but I doubt it. And it’s your loss.
Have fun fading into obscurity as the rest of our country moves on.
“Has this ever happened anywhere in any field?”
SF has a good point. Other than Social Security, fire protection, police protection, Medicare, the military, the Interstate Highway System, the TVA, and a myriad of other programs, it’s obvious that government can’t do anything better than teh private sector.
You’re pointing to Social Security & Medicare as success stories? Really? Check back with me in 10 years and see if that still holds.
The others aren’t areas where the Government took over a role previously held by the private sector. So they’re in no way analagous to the question. But thanks.
What Jaim said.
The last conservative “dead enders” like JT and SF remind me of those people, pre-internet that got those shadowy newsletters that implored them to buy gold and told them that “The Communists” were coming to their town in the guise of minorities and teachers unions to take their guns and womyn.
It seems like they are headed back to the fringe- Americans are pointing and laughing as they should. Their tears taste like ice cream for people like me who are sick of what Republicans have done to a once-proud country.
Funny, I drove by a car dealership yesterday and they had lots of SUV’s. Didn’t know that I couldn’t buy them. I guess its all part of the Soros/bin Laden/Streisand Potemkin Village.
EL, I had no idea you were a comedian!
Social Security: the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Bernie Madoff should be pardoned and put in charge of it.
Fire, police, military: All public safety areas. Nice straw man. Nobody ever seriously argued about privatizing them.
And what happened to all those arguments about how profligate and wasteful military spending is?
Medicare: another budget item that is expanding at an incredible rate. Last I heard, it’ll run out of money in 2016.
Interstate highway system: pushed through as both a civic defense measure and a promotion of interstate commerce — two areas where the federal government has a valid, Constitutional interest.
The TVA: For the most part, it’s been successful. Unless, of course, you have a problem with them dumping a billion gallons of wet coal ash all over the place. So I’ll give you most of that one point.
“Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle? Hell, no. If I can even find a manufacturer willing to make the vehicle I want, I’ll get taxed and harassed for exercising my choice.”
Forgetting the fail of claiming that people can’t drive an Suv, what ideologues the ilk of JT fail to mention is that mechanisms such as gas taxes are a market based solution to the problems that SUV’s cause to the environment. They put the external costs from SUV usage in road infrastructure, health care from poor air quality and increased injuries in accidents (from being hit by larger vehicles) on the people that cause the externality. Same thing with cigarette and liquor taxes, taxes internalize into the price costs for public health. Same thing with Al Gore’s proposals for a carbon tax.
Funny though that JT equates “freedom” with “freedom from taxation”. Seems that he doesn’t quite understand what his state’s motto “Live Free or Die” really means, does he?
“You’re pointing to Social Security & Medicare as success stories? Really? Check back with me in 10 years and see if that still holds.”
Shorter Farris: Sure, SS has been wildly successful for 75 years and Medicare for 45, but you just wait!
The others aren’t areas where the Government took over a role previously held by the private sector. So they’re in no way analagous to the question. But thanks.
Fail, Farris. First of all, it need not be private first – all that needs to be true is that somewhere, sometime, somebody tried a private version. Fire departments used to sell their services to property owners; if you hadn’t bought one of their plaques, you were out of luck.
For the military, we might point to Blackwater, whose different rules of engagement (protect their clients, rather than protect Iraqis) in Iraq in 2005-06 led to them tearing through the streets and running Iraqis off the roads.
Yes, the government does some things much, much better. (To EL’s list I would add delivering the mail and health care.)
Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!
You can’t? I didn’t realize new Hampshire was so restrictive as to overrule the Constitution.
You want to add mail service? I guess that explains why FedEx & UPS aren’t in business anymore.
I cited a whole bunch of cases where your side doesn’t like “choice,” and wants to protect us from making “bad” choices.
The government doesn’t want people to be killed or kill themselves or others by their reckless choices.
Those bastards!
Can someone explain to me the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy? And reckless selfishness?
“Whattya mean I can’t fire an RPG in my backyard? What is this Russia?”
“Social Security: the biggest Ponzi Scheme”
Serious question: Do you have or have you ever had grand-parents?
Semi-serious question: If your name is Jay, has the Federal government ever saved your freaking life by giving you a Democrat-directed “bailout” vis a vis a mandatory obligation for hospitals to provide care, even for people (despite the fact that they’ve read every book by Ayn Rand) that couldn’t afford it?
Governing is about power. It’s about controlling people. It’s about deciding what people can and can not do. And there was this guy named Lord Acton who once made a famous observation about the nature and effect of power… -Jay Tea
—————
A prime example of our new ‘We love governing’ Chief Executive: White House Unbuttons Formal Dress Code
WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.
Yes, they are wonks. They like to govern. They like to fix things.
They like to tell you the earth is in peril and ‘we’ all need to be responsible. They just don’t think that responsibility applies to them.
And what happened to all those arguments about how profligate and wasteful military spending is?
They still exist. Military spending is wasteful when spending branches into the private /for-profit /shareholder driven sector. Have you been paying attention at all?
Thomas Paine: “That government is best which governs least.”
Jay Tea, as you collect your aphorisms, you might want to also collect their correct sources. This particular saying is attributed to Henry David Thoreau:
http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html
Would someone please tell me why Jay Tea hates Mexicans so much?
Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!
Wow, so you’re just reduced to making shit COMPLETELY up now, aren’t you?
Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle? Hell, no. If I can even find a manufacturer willing to make the vehicle I want, I’ll get taxed and harassed for exercising my choice.
In other words, you actually can, it’s just that you want something that doesn’t necessarily meet your personal specifications and have to pay more for it than you want. God, you’re a pathetic little whiner.
“Can I choose to exercise my right to use lead based paints on the walls in my house.” Was a question that young Jay Tea’s parents asked themselves. Today we see the results of the wall nibbling that ensued.
Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle? Hell, no. If I can even find a manufacturer willing to make the vehicle I want, I’ll get taxed and harassed for exercising my choice. (Here’s a hint: the people who burned down the Hummer dealership in California probably didn’t vote for McCain.)
I must have missed the memo outlawing SUV sales. I’m sure that Jay will be supplying us with a link to that any second now…
Can parents choose which school to send their children to? Absolutely — as long as they don’t mind still paying for that public education they won’t be getting.
Dude! I’ve got no kids at all! When, where, and how do I notify the government that I no longer need to pay taxes for other people’s children’s edumacation? Plus: some of that taxpayer money goes to support schools that push their own flavor of religious insanity. How do I stop involuntarily supporting pedophiles and other church-paid employees?
Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!
Did Jay Tea just inform the studio audience that he’s a convicted felon? Because, last time I checked, they were the only ones who weren’t allowed to keep and bear arms.
Can people choose to go without health insurance? For now, yes — but that’s on the agenda.
I’m wondering how many in your statistical sample (you’re basing this unfounded allegation upon some factual evidence, right?) voluntarily chose to go without health care insurance. And how many people with children or people with long term chronic care requirements are voluntarily choosing to go without health care insurance?
I’m sure that you could choose to go into combat without wearing protective gear, too – but equally unsure of whether not having a choice in the matter would be all that problematic.
Here’s another funny thing: why couldn’t the people who were providing health care around the world choose to provide contraceptive services too, without being punished for their choice by the US government? And why oh why isn’t it a problem that the Republican’ts have taken that freedom away for the past eight years?
Can people choose whether or not to join a union without some union thug or corporate weasel looking over their shoulder? Again, yes for now — but it’s on the agenda, too.
Maybe you should ask the WalMart people who can’t even try and get a card check going in their store to consider starting a union because a corpo-weasel would fire their asses for doing it. Nice of you to get your panties in a bunch about a potential situation that doesn’t even exist in real life, though…
Thanks, Jaim, for doing most of the heavy lifting lately. Exposing the truthiness of the whizz banger is a full time job. Funny – if Soros was really engaging in all of the Scaife-life machinations the Reich wingnuts accuse him of, there probably would be such a full time job available (probably one of the few areas of potential job growth in america will be fact checking the wrongwingers). Yet no such position exists – whereas there are scores of similar Republican’t positions that Scaife is paying for!
SaveFarris spews:
“That was why we were told we needed this stimulus package, because things were that bleak. If, as you say, the economy continues it’s downturn despite the stimulus, then the stimulus has by definition failed.”
We are in a depression. Depressions don’t last 1.5 years, depressions last 1.5 decades.
If in 2018 we are still in a depression then you can say that the stimulus didn’t work as well as it should have. Until then you (having made this mess) can STFU.
Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle? Hell, no. If I can even find a manufacturer willing to make the vehicle I want, I’ll get taxed and harassed for exercising my choice.
Jay Tea, I live in Los Angeles. Everyday on the road I see Prius’ and Hummers, and all manner of vehicles in between.
California has created incentives for people to buy Prius’, and like hybrids, and it has created disincentives for people to buy Hummers, and like SUVs.
But everyone still has a choice in what car they want. They weigh the costs and take their pick.
If you lived in Los Angeles and you wanted to drive a Hummer and you have the money, you can buy one.
You could buy one here: http://cerritoshummer.com/
If we Democrats “own it,” those assholes should get out of the goddamn store. Now!
Oliver, dear Oliver…by George I think he’s got it!
This thread may be the most important here at Chez Oliver since I’ve been lurking.
The KEY Republican position on Government is that GOVERNMENT IS THE ENEMY. This is WHY they HATE FDR – HATE FDR – HATE FDR. FDR brought in things like the TVA (which they still haven’t managed to kill off) – the TVA was an investment by Government in the future of that region. It was a SPECTACULAR success. The Republicans were terrified that “workers” would REALIZE that Government – as well as the private sector – could not only create jobs but could be CONSTRUCTIVE and generate honest, meaningful growth and prosperity. The Republicans were SCARED SHITLESS that TVA – or something similar – would be introduced around the country.
In the US you are SOCIALIST about roads, sewers, air traffic control, police, firefighters, schools, military and a few other things. IF the workers actually voted in their INTERESTS you would also have SOCIALIST (sic) views about the above PLUS – Health care, universities, etc., etc.
When America bought Reagan’s “government is the enemy” “trickle down” “deregulate” koolaid with CROSS PARTY support (Dems, don’t kid yourselves MANY Dems AGREED with the Government being an ENEMY – MANY still do!!) the descent into today’s hell was set. Reagan and Bush were not the EVIL ONES – the American workers and middle class who voted OUTRAGEOUSLY against their own FINANCIAL INTERESTS were the culprits.
Americans – up til now nave voted against themselves. Maybe – just maybe, America may have changed enough so that you’ve actually stopped destroying your quality of life and your children’s future.
Seriously though – I still think most AMERICA workers still believe – like Rush Limpdick – that the “Government is the enemy” in which case Jay Tea and the other ENEMIES of the vast “middle of America” will continue to have the last laugh when the Obama legacy is buried by the Republicans – as the FDR one was.
My ONLY hope is that Obama can EDUCATE enough of you assholes before his eight years is over to UNDERSTAND your OWN interests and to VOTE FOR THEM!
Michael Over Here at 1:32 had the funniest comment on this thread. Dude, my sides still hurt.
Jay Tea: Let me toss in seat belts. I am a seat belt militant: I wear them all the time. If you ride with me, you wear them or get out. But if some idiots want to refuse to wear them, that’s grounds for a cop to pull you over and fine you.
Same with motorcycle helmets. I think you’re a frigging moron if you refuse to wear them. I also don’t think that “being a frigging moron” ought to be against the law. (Hence your continuing freedom.) Those who want to choose to go helmetless, for whatever reason? NOT ALLOWED in most states.
I agree with you fully on both of those. If you don’t buckle up, if you don’t wear a decent helmet (cheap plastic skull caps aren’t) then you’re a moron but should not be considered a lawbreaker. (I would make an exception for kids. Up to a certain age parents shuld be required by law to buckle up their kids. The kids shouldn’t pay the price for mom and dad’s stupidity.)
But for both seatbelts and motorcycle hemlets the law is attempting to protect you from yourself. For SUVs, CAFE standards, public school funding and most of the other items mentioned you aren’t the only one affected.
Your choice to not wear a helmet affects (for the most part) only you. You bear the consequences of not being protected. Your choice to drive a gas guzzler, however, affects others in terms of air quality, gas prices and safety of the roads. it isn’t a perfect distinction, there are grey areas to be sure. But Republicans by and large seem to see any restrictions on their choices only to the extent it affects them, and choose (heh) not to see that it has broader effects as well.
Michael Over Here at 1:32 had the funniest comment on this thread.
I c
ncur.
Reich $
Republican’t $$
I dunno Bruce. Being a usual member of the “studio audience” I kind of like (:Tom:) @ 1:46PM:
“Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!
Did Jay Tea just inform the studio audience that he’s a convicted felon? Because, last time I checked, they were the only ones who weren’t allowed to keep and bear arms.”
(:Tom:), FTW!
Jay Tea: Medicare: another budget item that is expanding at an incredible rate. Last I heard, it’ll run out of money in 2016.
So should we change the medical system to fix it?
Jay Tea: I’ve said repeatedly, my dear little fuckwit, that I do NOT want to change the system that saved my life in my hour of need. It is YOU that want to revamp the entire system — running the risk of destroying it in the name of making it “better.” (emphasis added)
Nope. Don’t change anything. Attempts at improvement are too risky.
We like governing (power).
And while that traditionally has led to campaigns where we put brains ahead of heart (you must have missed the last leftist campaign meme which was to appeal to people/voters based on emotion, not on facts and data – your weak spots),
it also leads to people running the government with a vested interest in its performance for the citizenry. (Yeah, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Social Security, the Department of Education, HUD,……)
And about lead-based paints, the EPA controls those programs, the same EPA that was proposed by president Nixon. Who by the way was a Republican. Geniuses. And guess what else, people are forced to join unions all the time. This blog is a target-rich environment for stupidity. But keep hammering Jay Tea for pointing out how much the left hates freedom and individuality. Remember, president Obama reminds us the rest of the world doesn’t like us setting our thermostats where we want, how we eat what we want, and drive what we want. We can’t have that.
“because the government will take over and do it better and for less money.”
The most retarded statement ever written. Will do it better, and for less,…..Wow.
Now go ahead and finish-up telling each other how fantassssstic Big Government is for us all (stick your head in the sand and avoid the 800 pound gorilla of evidence that shows that’s what permitted this mess to happen).
Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle?
Okay, Jay, really obvious question here;
Why would you want to? To compensate for some other….um…shortcoming?
I keed, I keeed!
If in 2018 we are still in a depression then you can say that the stimulus didn’t work as well as it should have. Until then you (having made this mess) can STFU.
Public Support for Economic Recovery Plan Slips to 42%
Is there a Godwin’s type Law for a liberal on blog telling someone he disagrees with to STFU, or is it just a given, like ‘Frist’ used to be on the first post of every blog topic?
Apparently, even liberals are bailing on this abortion, so I guess poster elspi is telling close to 60% of the American population to STFU, that as default victors to the reins, Democrats know better how to fix things more than the public. How ironic that ‘The Shock Doctrine‘ was written by a loony Left liberal, now that Dems are using economic disaster to fulfill their dreams of turning our country into a socialistic state.
now that Dems are using economic disaster to fulfill their dreams of turning our country into a socialistic state.
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
Rahm Emmanuel, November 2008
praying to Tax Cut Jesus, weakening our infrastructure…
Yeah, about those Democratic attempts to “stimulate” our economy by spending on infrastructure:
Where’s the Infrastructure Spending?
In other news, doctors today reported that the tingle in Chris Matthews leg has become faint and irregular. He is under close observation in an area hospital.
Dave in SoCal: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
Rahm Emmanuel, November 2008
Like speed through a law that gives the government unprecedented powers to invade your privacy and threaten your freedom?
Like speed through a law that gives the government unprecedented powers to invade your privacy and threaten your freedom?
Link no work.
But would that be this program?
Is that the law you’re referring to?
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
Rahm Emmanuel, November 2008
Yeah, wanna know where he learned that? Disaster capitalist Milton Friedman. It’s what motivated the Bush administration for 7 years. Now you’re crying foul when a Democrat says it?
Is that the law you’re referring to?
-Dave in SoCal
Yes, Dave, I believe that is the same program Sean D. was referring to. What a conundrum. Defend a decision by the Perfect One or just criticize the program without mentioning the Perfect One’s approval? Or, like the scrote Olbermann, criticize it and just say the Perfect One was being pragmatic and bipartisan and that there were more bigger-picture issues to be won by approving it?
Can I choose to buy and drive a big, gas-guzzling vehicle?
Sure, but don’t expect us to weep for you when you’re flushing money down the toilet for gas, or laugh at you for your compensation issues.
Can parents choose which school to send their children to? Absolutely — as long as they don’t mind still paying for that public education they won’t be getting.
Translation: “Poor people don’t deserve education. I want my own serfs, damnit!”
Can I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? Oh, HELL no!
As pointed out before, you’re either a convicted felon or a liar, both are equally likely. Plus, don’t get angry at me laughing at you for choosing to wield a “manly” gun. Seriously how “manly” is a weapon with a point-and-click interface?
that I do NOT want to change the system that saved my life in my hour of need.
And this is supposed to be an argument AGAINST universal health care?
I’d just like to say to Jay Tea and his ilk that ignoring me won’t make me go away. In fact, it’s better for me, since I don’t have to waste my time rebutting your weak “arguments” and still get the taste of victory knowing I scared you all off. Again, I’m not going away. I’ll be around whether I post or not, and I’ll be around long after you’re all dead.
I’d just like to say to Jay Tea and his ilk that ignoring me won’t make me go away. In fact, it’s better for me, since I don’t have to waste my time rebutting your weak “arguments” and still get the taste of victory knowing I scared you all off. Again, I’m not going away. I’ll be around whether I post or not, and I’ll be around long after you’re all dead.
SDM: Like speed through a law that gives the government unprecedented powers to invade your privacy and threaten your freedom?
Dave in SoCal: Link no work.
But would that be this program?
No, this one:
www . aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html
Dennis: Yes, Dave, I believe that is the same program Sean D. was referring to.
And yet it wasn’t. But don’t let stopping for clarification keep you from making whatever false assumptions you need to to support your view. After all, it’s just so much easier to lie about what others say, isn’t it?
I still don’t have an answer as to why Jay Tea hates Mexicans.
No, this one:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. So it was this one instead.
Yeah, wanna know where he learned that? Disaster capitalist Milton Friedman. It’s what motivated the Bush administration for 7 years. Now you’re crying foul when a Democrat says it?
Wait a minute. Obama’s chief of staff is taking a page directly out of the Bush playback?
What kind of Hope and Change is that?
If we wanted just another politician following the same failed Bush policies we would have elected McCain.
But don’t let stopping for clarification keep you from making whatever false assumptions you need to to support your view. After all, it’s just so much easier to lie about what others say, isn’t it? –Sean D.
Woah, Sean, don’t go all Zython on us, now. Since your link didn’t work I assumed from your sentence afterward that you meant the FISA bill that Obama curiously voted for. It wasn’t a lie. If it was a false assumption, don’t blame me.
playback = playbook
D’oh
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted YES on March 1, 2006, on reauthorizing the Patriot Act.– Dave in SoCal
Good one, Dave. Another conundrum for The Perfect One throng.
He’s so pragmatic. And so very fortunate he didn’t have to vote on the Iraq War Resolution.
Wait a minute. Obama’s chief of staff is taking a page directly out of the Bush playbook?
What kind of Hope and Change is that?
I never said the guy walks on water. I never said I agree with him 100%. But “crises precipitate change.” There’s no denying that.
And I’d rather have a pit bull like Rahm Emmanuel that shit-zu like Sarah Palin by the President’s side.
*than*
Me: “I would like to point out that in 2010 things will be worse than they are now.”
SaveFarris says: “That was why we were told we needed this stimulus package, because things were that bleak. If, as you say, the economy continues it’s downturn despite the stimulus, then the stimulus has by definition failed.”
I would like to point out that what you said is worthy of insult. It is worthy of insults and swear words.
But instead I’m going to discuss it with facts along.
Things will get worse with the stimulus, but that does not mean it is a failure. The size of the collapse of the economy means that even a perfect stimulus package would still result in economic declines over the next couple of years.
Without this stimulus package, recovery could takes decades, if it came at all.
The alternatives are thus…
1.) Nothing. This would be the biggest mistake.
2.) Tax cuts. This would be costly and useless. Tax cuts are ‘immediate’, but you don’t get enough bang for your buck.
3.) Cut interest rates. Too close to zero to make a difference.
4.) SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! This gives you the biggest bang for your buck, especially if you spend on infrastructure. Also, the effect is (nearly) immediate, as there are plenty of ’shovel ready’ projects, while companies are less likely to lay off people now if they know there are enough government contracts coming down the pipes. After all, it costs money to hire and train new people.
J.G.Thayer: “About unions: look up the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, where employees will be granted the ‘right’ to choose or reject a union in the presence of union
‘organizers,’ dispensing with such silly concepts as secret ballots.”
This is a lie. You are either lying to us, or passing on a lie you heard. The lie is Unions will use intimidation to recruit people.
However, while there is no evidence that will happen, we do have evidence of employees using intimidation to break unions.
“Here in New Hampshire, we have no seat belt laws or helmet laws. And I see plenty of morons who reject them. I look at them and shake my head every time.”
And if you hit one and kill them, what would you do then? What if you were sued and lost more money because they died? What if your reputation was harmed because you killed someone?
Helmet laws and seat belt laws are their to protect not just the person wearing them, but the other people on the road. This is why you can drive on your own property without a seat belt or helmet.
Me: “because the government will take over and do it better and for less money.”
SaveFarris says: “Has this ever happened anywhere in any field?”
Yes. Military, Police, Education, Firemen, Roads, Car Insurance, Ports. Scientific Research, etc.
Anywhere where ‘common good’ is a bigger driving force than ‘profit.’
SaveFarris: “The others aren’t areas where the Government took over a role previously held by the private sector. So they’re in no way analagous to the question. But thanks.”
Read a history book. The others were all privatized at one point. If not in the States, before the States was around.
There’s a reason why we don’t have for-profit firemen anymore.
J.G.Thayer: “Fire, police, military: All public safety areas. Nice straw man. Nobody ever seriously argued about privatizing them.”
All three used to be privatized.
Like I told SaveFarris, read a history book.
Since you don’t have that basic fact straight, I see no reason to address the rest. You could only be correct by accident.
SaveFarris says: “You want to add mail service? I guess that explains why FedEx & UPS aren’t in business anymore.”
Canada Post runs a profit.
Also, do you use FedEx to send birthday cards or other letters?
I’m actually curious to know if Jay is actually a convicted felon. Because then that would be two times in his sorry life where he’s sucked off the government teat for services and treatment at our collective expense.
dennis: Since your link didn’t work I assumed from your sentence afterward that you meant the FISA bill that Obama curiously voted for. It wasn’t a lie. If it was a false assumption, don’t blame me.
Then who am I to hold responsible for your false assumptions?
In any event, (Dave in SoCal take note) whether Obama voted for the renewal of teh act or not is beside the point. Which was: Dave quoted Emmanuel saying one should take advantage of a crisis to do things you couldn’t get done before and I pointed out Obama’s administration isn’t the first to do this. Are Dave and you suggesting it’s wrong whenever it is done, or only when Obama does it?
It really isn’t whether one takes advantage of a crisis to push things through, but what is being pushed thru. In this particular case, it’s a law which diminished our privacy and liberty (PATRIOT act) vs (presumably, since you didn’t specify) the stimulus package.
Jay Tea: “Here in New Hampshire, we have no seat belt laws or helmet laws. And I see plenty of morons who reject them. I look at them and shake my head every time.”
CSS: And if you hit one and kill them, what would you do then? What if you were sued and lost more money because they died? What if your reputation was harmed because you killed someone?
Helmet laws and seat belt laws are their to protect not just the person wearing them, but the other people on the road. This is why you can drive on your own property without a seat belt or helmet.
“What if you were sued and lost more money because they died? What if your reputation was harmed because you killed someone?” Then it would go to show that society at large has continued to reject the idea of personal responsibility. If they died or were more seriously injured because they chose not to wear a seat belt then the responsibility for the additional injury is theirs.
You couldn’t definitively with certainty say they would not have suffered more than this precise amount of injury had they buckled up. But you could certainly show well enough for a court that their injuries would have been far less.
A reasonable person knows people can be hurt on the road and that seat belts help protect against injury. If they choose not to use them they should not turn around and proclaim their freedom to choose to take a risk should be paid for by someone else. And society shouldn’t let them.
Woah, Sean, don’t go all Zython on us, now.
What’s da mattah? Did I hurt your fee-fees? Daw…I’m sowwy.
“recovery could take decades”, eh?
Now who’s using the politics of fear? More tomorrow sine iPhones aren’t built for lenghty responses
Sean: “Then it would go to show that society at large has continued to reject the idea of personal responsibility.”
Not if you were responsible for the accident.
Say you were speeding, clipped the cyclist, and he wiped out and died.
And that doesn’t change the fact that you killed someone, and for most normal people, that would be hell to get over.
SaveFarris says: “‘recovery could take decades’, eh?
Now who’s using the politics of fear? More tomorrow sine iPhones aren’t built for lenghty responses”
Two points…
1.) Hypocrisy much?
2.) It’s not the politics of fear when it is based on well established facts.
Raising the terror alerts for political reasons is the politics of fear. Saying problems will persist for a long time if we don’t fix them is not.
This isn’t brain surgery. It is not hard to figure out.
Stop arguing with them.
To vote Republican after these last 8 year I have to really wonder are you suicidal, depressed, or do you belong to one of there cults like the Crazy Christians.
How can you argue with a person in this state of mind. And you wonder why there arguments make no sense.
“Implicit in McConnell’s message was the concern that the Republican Party under Bush strayed from its beliefs, resulting in drubbings in two straight elections.”
They are a lost tribe. What Conservative belief did they stray from.
Rule of Law. LOL. Are you serious. They have no respect for the law. NONE.
Smaller Govt. This has never happened under a Republican admin.
Govt Surplus. Deficit Spending. Not.
RECORD DEFICITS. Yup. The last 4 Republicans have accomplished that feat.
So all the things they stand for they have never accomplished. Never.
Bush pushed though every conservative initiative they wanted.
They supported and cheered Bush in everything he did.
Conservative policies have brought us onto the verge of being a third world country.
—-
Look at the house. They all voted against Obama’s plan.
Not one of them thought for themselves and bucked the trend.
Listen how they all stay on point repeating the day’s emailed talking points from the RNC.
That’s a powerful cult.
—
Rush said “he hopes Obama fails.”
When Bush stole the election I didn’t want him to fail. I just was hoping he didn’t fuck everything up.
Oh well.
–
Hey ReDINGLINGS: Did you see on Nov 4th how the world celebrated the Republican loss like the fall of Nazi Germany.
Did you see that. Do you know what they would have been doing if McCain won. Not celebrating.
A sane person would have seen the entire world celebrating there party’s defeat and wondered what am I supporting.
Did this thought ever cross your mind? Maybe?
The world did celebrate. THE ENTIRE WORLD.
How does it feel to have the entire world dislike you.
Like I said. It’s a powerful cult.
If things get much worse Obama could always create a new holiday.
DRAG A REPUBLICAN IN THE STREET AND BEAT THEM UNCONSCIOUS DAY.
Silly Republicans says: “Stop arguing with them.”
[SNIP!]
“How can you argue with a person in this state of mind. And you wonder why there arguments make no sense.”
This is why I insult them. It’s as productive as using logical against them, and it’s more fun..
On a serious note, if they give logical arguments, and they do occasionally, I will debate them on the merits of their arguments. However, if they shout, ‘ACORN is kill democracy!’ Then I will just make fun of them.
On a side note, I can switch back and forth immediately and without warning.
1.) Nothing.
2.) Tax cuts.
3.) Cut interest rates.
4.) SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!
I think we agree on #1 & 3. But our differences on #2 & #4 appear to be the crux of the problem. Cutting capital gains taxes would put an immediate jolt into the stock market, which then would carry over into the rest of the economy. The biggest thing wrong right now is fear, fear that the economy will take “decades” to turn around. You get the market back up and those fears ease, which leads to increased investment, increased lending, increased employment, yadda yadda… You know: all the good stuff.
You say tax cuts are “too costly”. More costly than this bill? The GDP of Canada is less costly than this bill when you include interest.
As “shovel ready” as all these projects claim to be (and doesn’t that talking point scream “focus group tested!”), I’m not buying it. There’s too many community groups, too many environmental studies, too many zoning commissions for there to be THAT many projects that can start tomorrow. There just isn’t, not with the byzantine process that public works projects have to go through. If there was a matching easing of regulations (I know, a buzzword ya’ll hate!), the plan might hold a modicum of interest. After all, what’s more important right now: the extinction of the houndstooth dragonfly or a highway and jobs?
For 8 years, your side has been mercilessly hammering Bush and Congressional Republicans for their profligate spending. (And rightly so!) So of course, the answer is … more spending! The only difference between Bush’s pork and this bill is the intended recipients (Amtrack, ACORN, & the NEA instead of Faith Based Groups & School Choice Pilot Programs).
Well done, CSS
Sean,
If you’re saying that Bush and Republicans used the 9/11 “crisis” as an opportunity to push through legislation that they had been wanting for sometime, just as I believe Obama and the Democrats are doing with the “Stimulus” bill, then I really can’t argue with you.
But the point I was trying to make (and touched on in my response to Duros) is that the Obama administration was supposed to be different. Wasn’t their entire platform based on the idea of CHANGE?
The tactic of saying “so what if my guy does it, your guy did it too” kind of falls apart when the fact is that your guy got himself elected on a campaign of “I won’t do all those bad things the previous guy did. I will do things differently”.
Kind of like the Democrat promise in 2006 about being the Most Ethical Congress Ever. Really? Then kindly explain Rangel, Dodd and Frank.
Or how about Obama’s promise to ban lobbyists from the White House, and then (in less than a week) coming up with a “waiver” program to justify ignoring the ban when it became inconvenient.
How about something as simple as Obama’s lecture to Americans about sacrifice and how we can’t “drive SUV’s and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees”, and then cranking up the Oval Office thermostat because “he’s from Hawaii, he doesn’t like the cold”.
As for all that talk about the “failed policies of the Bush administration”, how many of those same policies is the Obama administration continuing?
You can rightly criticize the Republicans and Bush for spending like drunken sailors over the last 8 years. But like Farris notes above, the Democrat answer is to spend even more?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
9/11 “crisis”
So you don’t think that 9/11 was a crisis? Wow.
“he’s from Hawaii, he doesn’t like the cold”.
Since you have no source, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re making this up.
As for all that talk about the “failed policies of the Bush administration”, how many of those same policies is the Obama administration continuing?
So far he’s already repealed the global gag rule and shut down Gitmo. I expect more reversals in the future.
Sorry Zython, it’s true. Your boy Obama really is that much of a hypocrite. Sorry to burst your dream.
“Your boy Obama”
Racist!
As to Obama, Congressional Democrats and the Stimulus Bill, and taking advantage of the crisis, left-wing hero Peggy Noonan pretty much nails it today:
What was needed? Not pork, not payoffs, not eccentric base-pleasing, group-greasing forays into birth control as stimulus, as the speaker of the House dizzily put it before being told to remove it… [the stimulus bill demonstrates that the congress is] not knowing what time it is, not knowing the old pork-barrel, group-greasing ways are over, done, embarrassing. When you create a bill like that, it doesn’t mean you’re a pro, it doesn’t mean you’re a tough, no-nonsense pol. It means you’re a slob.
That’s how the Democratic establishment in the House looks, not like people who are responding to a crisis, or even like people who are ignoring a crisis, but people who are using a crisis. Our hopeful, compelling new president shouldn’t have gone with this bill. He made news this week by going to the House to meet with Republicans. He could have made history by listening to them.
left-wing hero Peggy Noonan
That just made my day.
CSS: On a serious note, if they give logical arguments, and they do occasionally, I will debate them on the merits of their arguments. However, if they shout, ‘ACORN is kill democracy!’ Then I will just make fun of them.
On a side note, I can switch back and forth immediately and without warning.
Always nice to start the day with a laugh. Thanks, C.
Dave in So Call: But the point I was trying to make (and touched on in my response to Duros) is that the Obama administration was supposed to be different. Wasn’t their entire platform based on the idea of CHANGE?
SDM: It really isn’t whether one takes advantage of a crisis to push things through, but what is being pushed thru.
You’re focussed on the method, and not what is being done. And there are significant differences there.
Dave: The tactic of saying “so what if my guy does it, your guy did it too” kind of falls apart when the fact is that your guy got himself elected on a campaign of “I won’t do all those bad things the previous guy did. I will do things differently”.
Again, “I won’t do all those bad things” is about what is done. Yes, the how isn’t unimportant. I’m not saying ends jsutify means. But you’re looking at just the means and crying “See, no different at all.”
Dave: Obama’s promise to ban lobbyists from the White House, and then … coming up with a “waiver” program …
… and then cranking up the Oval Office thermostat …
Yes. A little troubling. But I’m willing to wait (as I did when Bush originally took office) to see how he actually does before crying that the sky is falling.
Dave: As for all that talk about the “failed policies of the Bush administration”, how many of those same policies is the Obama administration continuing?
First, it’s been a week and a half. How quickly to you expect him to undone 8 years? Seriously, I’d be interested in an answer.
Second, in that week and a half he’s removed the global gag rule, made moves to close Gitmo, removed obstacles to people being able to get equal pay. Really, I’d really like to know. Just how much does he have to get done how quickly for you?
You’re focussed on the method, and not what is being done. And there are significant differences there.
Exactly.
Yes. A little troubling. But I’m willing to wait (as I did when Bush originally took office) to see how he actually does before crying that the sky is falling.
Hey, I think if he doesn’t gets into another war on false pretenses to make up for daddy issues, he can keep the Oval Office as hot as he wants.
Second, in that week and a half he’s removed…
And revoked the executive privilege rules that Cheney et al hid behind.
He ain’t perfect. We’re not gonna agree with him 100%. But I believe him when he says “I got this.”*
*I know, he hasn’t actually said that, but….
left-wing hero Peggy Noonan
That just made my day.–Duros Hussein
And another New Friend of the Left tugs at Superman’s cape.
Barack “W”. Obama
– Kathleen Parker
Seriously, Dennis, are you okay? You do realize that both Peggy and Kathleen were conservatives just a very short time ago, right? Perhaps before they realized what an epic fail conservatism was and how damaging it has been?
He ain’t perfect. We’re not gonna agree with him 100%.
If any liberal disagrees with Obama between now and the end of the world, I will eat my “Condi in ‘08″ bumper sticker
Seriously, Dennis, are you okay? You do realize that both Peggy and Kathleen were conservatives just a very short time ago, right? Perhaps before they realized what an epic fail conservatism was and how damaging it has been?–Duros62
They didn’t bail on conservatism, Duros; they wigged out on Palin and neo-con Republicans. Please check your sources before you lead with something like ‘Seriously, are you okay’, otherwise you just sound like some kid posting here who just recently got into politics because it was cool to hate George Bush.
Not that there’s anyone here like that.
Frank DiSalle: If any liberal disagrees with Obama between now and the end of the world, I will eat my “Condi in ‘08″ bumper sticker
Would you like some salt with that, perhaps a bit of crow?
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/18/pelosi-obama-disagree-on-tax-cuts-bush-investigations:/
Or are you going to back out by claiming the clock literally starts now and something from earlier this month doesn’t count.
They didn’t bail on conservatism, Duros; they wigged out on Palin and neo-con Republicans.
Ah. But now they’re liberals?
Gotcha.
Ah. But now they’re liberals?
Duros62
No, go back and read what I wrote. I described Ms. Danny Noonan as ‘left wing hero’. You even copied it.
And I described K. Parker as ‘Another New Friend of the Left’, being facetious in that the Left suddenly appreciated, fawned over, and took what she wrote seriously for the first time too when she bailed on Palin.
You are new at this, aren’t you?
If any liberal disagrees with Obama between now and the end of the world, I will eat my “Condi in ‘08″ bumper sticker
I disagree with him voting for the FISA bill.
Please post the video on Youtube and give us a link. Can’t wait.
SaveFarris: “Cutting capital gains taxes would put an immediate jolt into the stock market, which then would carry over into the rest of the economy.”
No it wouldn’t. If a strong stock market meant a strong economy, then the government could simply take that $800 billion, and buy the stocks themselves. That would boost the stock markets a whole lot faster, but it would have no effect on the real economy.
“As “shovel ready” as all these projects claim to be (and doesn’t that talking point scream “focus group tested!”), I’m not buying it. There’s too many community groups, too many environmental studies, too many zoning commissions for there to be THAT many projects that can start tomorrow.”
Do you know how much money needs to be spent just on basic maintenance, maintenance that has been neglected for years? And this would have the added benefit of helping the economy for years to come, because infrastructure is needed to ship goods, get people to work, etc., while these are long-term, high paying jobs.
“For 8 years, your side has been mercilessly hammering Bush and Congressional Republicans for their profligate spending. (And rightly so!) So of course, the answer is … more spending!”
No. It’s not the spending that is the issue, it’s what they spend it on and who gets the contracts.
They keep giving no-bid contracts to companies with political connections to people in the Bush administration. They overpay and get poor results in return.
“Always nice to start the day with a laugh. Thanks, C.”
I could use a laugh as well. So could you finally explain why it was unfair for Oliver to mention Norm Coleman in the headline when one of Norm Coleman’s political contributors was being sued for forcing a company to give Norm Coleman’s wife a $75,000 job she wasn’t qualified for?
Or explain to me why Jay Caruso admitted he made a mistake in the “Per 100,000″ debacle, but you never did.
Come on. I could use the laugh.
“If any liberal disagrees with Obama between now and the end of the world, I will eat my “Condi in ‘08″ bumper sticker”
I agree with Hillary’s health care position over Obama’s.
I think Obama shouldn’t be negotiating with Republicans, as it seems clear it is a waste of time.
I think Obama should put on a damn sweater.
Does that count, or do I need to complain about new crap?
You are new at this, aren’t you?
…wrote the “tenets of the Laffer Curve” dumbass who still can’t create a hyperlink. Dumbass.
I must confess that I didn’t expect that being MORE liberal than Obama would be construed as “disagreeing”. My bad — I was referring to a liberal being opposed to one of Obama’s policies as being too liberal, or the (even remoter) possibility that a liberal might adopt a conservative position in opposition to Obama.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
[ Hunting for the gravy to put on the bumper sticker ]
Rather than jump on folks for intentionally misrepresenting his position, he explains that he wasn’t clear in his original post. Rather than use that to distance himself from his comment he starts looking for the gravy.
Bravo. I can think of some others (myself included, but one other in particular) who should do the same on occasion.
“Rather than jump on folks for intentionally misrepresenting his position, he explains that he wasn’t clear in his original post. Rather than use that to distance himself from his comment he starts looking for the gravy.”
Misrepresent his position?
Here’s what he wrote:
“If any liberal disagrees with Obama between now and the end of the world, I will eat my ‘Condi in ‘08′ bumper sticker”
He made no mention of disagreeing with Obama because Obama was too liberal. There wasn’t even a hint of that restriction in his original claim. But we are to blame for misrepresenting what he said?
Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous ass.
“Bravo. I can think of some others (myself included, but one other in particular) who should do the same on occasion.”
Explain how Jay Caruso could admit he made a mistake, but you never admitted his ‘per 100,000′ posts didn’t make sense.
Then explain how Norm Coleman’s wife getting money illegally funneled to her by one on Norm Coleman’s donors isn’t connected to Norm Coleman.
When you can answer those questions, and only then, can you talk about other people’s behavior.
Hypocritical asshole.
CSS: He made no mention of disagreeing with Obama because Obama was too liberal. There wasn’t even a hint of that restriction in his original claim. But we are to blame for misrepresenting what he said?
Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous ass.
Whoa, there big fella. Clearly you’ve failed to undertand the meaning of my words. “Rather than jump on folks for intentionally misrepresenting his position, he explains that he wasn’t clear in his original post.”
I wasn’t suggesting anyone had misrepresented him. I was pointing out that was a course Frank hadn’t taken, that he wasn’t making that claim as an excuse. You’re quick to jump on folks for misquoting you or failing to understand the meaning of your words. You’d think that might make you more interested in making sure you understood what others have said.
Then explain how Norm Coleman’s wife getting money illegally funneled to her by one on Norm Coleman’s donors isn’t connected to Norm Coleman.
If that is what had happened then it would be. But, again, that wasn’t what the original article had said. The suits allege Kazeminy tried to funnel money to the company at which Coleman’s wife works. Nothing in the article said money was going directly to Coleman. “Neither lawsuit alleges the money actually made it to Coleman or that the Colemans knew about the alleged plan.”
You are new at this, aren’t you?
Would it be impolite to ask you to bite me?
I was referring to a liberal being opposed to one of Obama’s policies as being too liberal, or the (even remoter) possibility that a liberal might adopt a conservative position in opposition to Obama.
Lift with your knees, Frank. Those goalposts are heavy.
“If that is what had happened then it would be. But, again, that wasn’t what the original article had said. The suits allege Kazeminy tried to funnel money to the company at which Coleman’s wife works. Nothing in the article said money was going directly to Coleman. ‘Neither lawsuit alleges the money actually made it to Coleman or that the Colemans knew about the alleged plan.’”
The money was going to Norm Coleman’s wife.
HIS FUCKING WIFE.
Kazeminy forced them to hire Norm Coleman’s wife and pay her $75,000 for a job she was not qualified for. (A job that some reports suggest she didn’t even show up for.)
CSS, you’re so funny.