The bitter, name-calling residents of loserville have closed their blogs from unapproved user comments. Clearly powerless to impress anyone with their vicious fear-mongering, they have decided to take their balls and go home. Except, they never had any balls to begin with.
1. We got through eight years of George Bush - we'll get through Barack Obama just fine.
2. There were no significant issues at the polls. Despite screaming "ACORN! ACORN!", there is no proof that voter fraud resulted from the ACORN registration fiasco. Over 100 million votes were cast nationwide, so it seems unlikely two Black Panthers in Philadelphia scared too many people away.
3. The Obama victory was decisive. In 2000 and 2004, Bush and his followers called his victories "mandates" despite winning by an even slimmer margin than Barack Obama did.
4. There were no cries from the right about a "dictatorship" when the Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office for SIX YEARS at the beginning of the Bush administration. Now, before Barack Obama has spent a single day as President, his power is unchecked and we're all going to die!
5. Also, fuck you.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
re: pro-life Palin, by Jose
It's lengthy and may cause people to think, so I fear Victoria will delete it.
If abortion is the big issue here, as it seems to be, I think the Republicans need to start asking themselves some hard questions. Number one: just how committed to the "pro-life" position is their presidential nominee, John McCain?
The obvious answer is not very committed at all. By all accounts, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge were atop his short list of VP choices. They're both pro-choice. What does it say about Senator McCain when he's willing to have a vice president who's pro-choice? It says this: McCain is against abortion only because he's in the Republican party and he can't get elected if he's pro-choice. If it's some sort of strong moral or religious conviction on his part, he would never have considered Lieberman or Ridge for his VP.
The selection of Sarah Palin looked like a cheap stunt to me when it was announced. Now it looks like a panic stricken last second decision cheap stunt. McCain had the Republican nomination locked up five months ago. He's had five months to work on this. And this is what we get?
McCain's staff claims that McCain knew about the pregnancy before the decision was made. This is total BS. McCain's staff knew about it, but the Baby Daddy still describes himself as a F***ing Redneck on his Myspace page? The McCain staff didn't think the words F***ing Redneck might look a little bad? The couldn't persuade the Baby Daddy to take his Myspace Page down before his mother-in-law to be ran for vice president? Sarah didn't point her gun at him and tell him get the F word off of there right now, you F***ing Redneck?
So when, exactly, did Sarah have that little conversation with Senator McCain? Um, ah, excuse me Senator, there's something we need to discuss. Not, I guarantee you, until after her selection had been announced.
The news media has not been able to locate one single man, woman, child, bear, or moose who will state that McCain's staff asked them one single question about Sarah Palin before her selection was announced. A twelve man team from the McCain staff arrived in Alaska to start the "vetting" process and the background investigation. They arrived two days after he'd made the announcement. Better late than never. Maybe their flight was delayed.
Beyond the pregnant high school daughter, Palin has now hired her own attorney for the "Troopergate" investigation, a strong indication there's something amiss there. She was nearly recalled as the mayor of her little town after firing the police chief for political reasons. Her husband has a drunken driving conviction. She spoke in favor the the bridge to nowhere before she dishonestly claimed to have rejected it. She pretends to be a reformer but she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon to her own little town.
None of these things, by themselves, would disqualify her as a VP nominee. Taken together, though, they're a perfect portrait of a disastrous last minute decision by a pathetically disorganized and incompetent campaign staff. McCain and his staff just barely knew who Sarah Palin was.
There were far better choices out there. If McCain wanted a female running mate, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, and Susan Collins are sitting right there in the United States Senate with him, with far superior qualifications and long careers in the public spotlight and very likely no embarrassing secrets to be revealed. If he wanted a strong abortion opponent, there was Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty.
My hunch at what happened is this: McCain stuck to his guns and said he wanted Lieberman no matter what, with Ridge as his second choice. The campaign staff and the powers that be in the Republican party said no way no how. McCain said no way no how to every possible VP they suggested, like Pawlenty and Romney. Stalemate until the week of the Democratic Convention and Obama's big night in Denver. We've got to have a nominee to announce, fast. McCain shouts at his staff expletive expletive expletive I want another candidate and I want it right now. Poof. Sarah Palin.
His first big decision and he blows it completely. You want this man to be Commander in Chief?
I have little doubt that McCain cares very little one way or the other on the question of abortion. It's obvious to me he really wanted Joe Lieberman on the ticket with him. He needs Joe around to remind him which country is Iran and which is Iraq and who the Sunnis and the Shiites are and who's on which side. Which brings us to the final question. Let's say McCain managed to get elected president in spite of all this. There's a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Will he appoint a justice who will uphold Roe vs Wade, or will he appoint one who will vote to overturn it?
Before you answer, check the record of our recent Republican presidents. Ronald Reagan was the shining star of the conservative movement and the darling of the Christian right wing. Of course he was against abortion. He said so over and over again. He was so against it he appointed not one but two justices to the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted to uphold Roe vs Wade. The religious right never caught on that Ronnie was just using them for votes and campaign workers and money. They still worship the man, even after learning the Nancy consulted astrologists and cancelled summit meetings the world leaders based on their rather non-Christian hocus pocus predictions.
If McCain is a strong opponent of abortion, Lieberman and Ridge would not have been his top choices for the VP job. If McCain is a strong abortion opponent, he would have picked a strong abortion opponent from the beginning, instead of settling for an anti-abortion VP at the last possible minute without having much of an idea who she really was. Don't get Ronnie Reaganed again, Christian Right. McCain could not care less about your values. He only wants your votes and your money. If you're taking his choice of Sarah Palin as a positive sign that he's on your side, you'd better take a good hard close look at it. Panic stricken last second cheap stunts are not the same thing as deeply held moral and religious values.
If abortion is the big issue here, as it seems to be, I think the Republicans need to start asking themselves some hard questions. Number one: just how committed to the "pro-life" position is their presidential nominee, John McCain?
The obvious answer is not very committed at all. By all accounts, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge were atop his short list of VP choices. They're both pro-choice. What does it say about Senator McCain when he's willing to have a vice president who's pro-choice? It says this: McCain is against abortion only because he's in the Republican party and he can't get elected if he's pro-choice. If it's some sort of strong moral or religious conviction on his part, he would never have considered Lieberman or Ridge for his VP.
The selection of Sarah Palin looked like a cheap stunt to me when it was announced. Now it looks like a panic stricken last second decision cheap stunt. McCain had the Republican nomination locked up five months ago. He's had five months to work on this. And this is what we get?
McCain's staff claims that McCain knew about the pregnancy before the decision was made. This is total BS. McCain's staff knew about it, but the Baby Daddy still describes himself as a F***ing Redneck on his Myspace page? The McCain staff didn't think the words F***ing Redneck might look a little bad? The couldn't persuade the Baby Daddy to take his Myspace Page down before his mother-in-law to be ran for vice president? Sarah didn't point her gun at him and tell him get the F word off of there right now, you F***ing Redneck?
So when, exactly, did Sarah have that little conversation with Senator McCain? Um, ah, excuse me Senator, there's something we need to discuss. Not, I guarantee you, until after her selection had been announced.
The news media has not been able to locate one single man, woman, child, bear, or moose who will state that McCain's staff asked them one single question about Sarah Palin before her selection was announced. A twelve man team from the McCain staff arrived in Alaska to start the "vetting" process and the background investigation. They arrived two days after he'd made the announcement. Better late than never. Maybe their flight was delayed.
Beyond the pregnant high school daughter, Palin has now hired her own attorney for the "Troopergate" investigation, a strong indication there's something amiss there. She was nearly recalled as the mayor of her little town after firing the police chief for political reasons. Her husband has a drunken driving conviction. She spoke in favor the the bridge to nowhere before she dishonestly claimed to have rejected it. She pretends to be a reformer but she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon to her own little town.
None of these things, by themselves, would disqualify her as a VP nominee. Taken together, though, they're a perfect portrait of a disastrous last minute decision by a pathetically disorganized and incompetent campaign staff. McCain and his staff just barely knew who Sarah Palin was.
There were far better choices out there. If McCain wanted a female running mate, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, and Susan Collins are sitting right there in the United States Senate with him, with far superior qualifications and long careers in the public spotlight and very likely no embarrassing secrets to be revealed. If he wanted a strong abortion opponent, there was Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty.
My hunch at what happened is this: McCain stuck to his guns and said he wanted Lieberman no matter what, with Ridge as his second choice. The campaign staff and the powers that be in the Republican party said no way no how. McCain said no way no how to every possible VP they suggested, like Pawlenty and Romney. Stalemate until the week of the Democratic Convention and Obama's big night in Denver. We've got to have a nominee to announce, fast. McCain shouts at his staff expletive expletive expletive I want another candidate and I want it right now. Poof. Sarah Palin.
His first big decision and he blows it completely. You want this man to be Commander in Chief?
I have little doubt that McCain cares very little one way or the other on the question of abortion. It's obvious to me he really wanted Joe Lieberman on the ticket with him. He needs Joe around to remind him which country is Iran and which is Iraq and who the Sunnis and the Shiites are and who's on which side. Which brings us to the final question. Let's say McCain managed to get elected president in spite of all this. There's a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Will he appoint a justice who will uphold Roe vs Wade, or will he appoint one who will vote to overturn it?
Before you answer, check the record of our recent Republican presidents. Ronald Reagan was the shining star of the conservative movement and the darling of the Christian right wing. Of course he was against abortion. He said so over and over again. He was so against it he appointed not one but two justices to the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted to uphold Roe vs Wade. The religious right never caught on that Ronnie was just using them for votes and campaign workers and money. They still worship the man, even after learning the Nancy consulted astrologists and cancelled summit meetings the world leaders based on their rather non-Christian hocus pocus predictions.
If McCain is a strong opponent of abortion, Lieberman and Ridge would not have been his top choices for the VP job. If McCain is a strong abortion opponent, he would have picked a strong abortion opponent from the beginning, instead of settling for an anti-abortion VP at the last possible minute without having much of an idea who she really was. Don't get Ronnie Reaganed again, Christian Right. McCain could not care less about your values. He only wants your votes and your money. If you're taking his choice of Sarah Palin as a positive sign that he's on your side, you'd better take a good hard close look at it. Panic stricken last second cheap stunts are not the same thing as deeply held moral and religious values.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Democrat calls ...
I'm not defending Wiggins - what she did is inexcusable. She should apologize immediately in the most public way possible.
Here's my point:
Person A, a Democrat, does something stupid.
Person B, a Republican, does something equally stupid.
Here on this blog, this is what happens:
Person A becomes symbolic of ALL Democrats, because surely all liberals must all be mindless drones incapable of independent thought.
Person B is a RINO or "a bad example" of what Republicans should be, but oh, heavens no ... that's not an example of the party as a whole. My goodness, who'd ever think such a thing?
Democrats are all villains whenever one person does something boneheaded; Republicans are to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
That's my point.
Again, Wiggins' behavior was reprehensible. I don't know if she has a history of doing stuff like that or not - if she does, I hope she finds her way back into the private sector ASAP.
As far as the rest, Lew, I post to make my point(s) and move along. Sometimes I find it useful and relevant to use slightly off-topic material to prove my point. Not gonna change it, even if you-know-who gets delete-happy (even when I don't have a "potty mouth").
Perhaps you should urge Klatu/Jack to follow your rule, too, as he mostly posts "DRILLLL FOR OOIIIILLLL!!!" in every thread, regardless of the topic.
Also, I notice you use "obfuscate" and "BWAHAHAHAHA!" in a lot of your posts. Nothing wrong with it. I just notice, is all.
Here's my point:
Person A, a Democrat, does something stupid.
Person B, a Republican, does something equally stupid.
Here on this blog, this is what happens:
Person A becomes symbolic of ALL Democrats, because surely all liberals must all be mindless drones incapable of independent thought.
Person B is a RINO or "a bad example" of what Republicans should be, but oh, heavens no ... that's not an example of the party as a whole. My goodness, who'd ever think such a thing?
Democrats are all villains whenever one person does something boneheaded; Republicans are to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
That's my point.
Again, Wiggins' behavior was reprehensible. I don't know if she has a history of doing stuff like that or not - if she does, I hope she finds her way back into the private sector ASAP.
As far as the rest, Lew, I post to make my point(s) and move along. Sometimes I find it useful and relevant to use slightly off-topic material to prove my point. Not gonna change it, even if you-know-who gets delete-happy (even when I don't have a "potty mouth").
Perhaps you should urge Klatu/Jack to follow your rule, too, as he mostly posts "DRILLLL FOR OOIIIILLLL!!!" in every thread, regardless of the topic.
Also, I notice you use "obfuscate" and "BWAHAHAHAHA!" in a lot of your posts. Nothing wrong with it. I just notice, is all.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Again, surrounded by shitheads.
Sigh.
Let's put numbers aside for a moment. We're losing track of the big picture here. The point is this, bottom line:
Given the way the economy works today, and given our dependence on oil (good, bad, or otherwise), every little bit helps, right?
Would anyone not agree (aside from you-know-who) that taking a baby-step is better than taking no step at all? Or is it better to just wait until some improbable solution comes along that fixes everything at once (it ain't gonna be drilling, either)?
If it's been proven (and it has, Lew) that proper tire pressure and traveling at proper speeds can help increase mileage, it's a good thing, right? We're not so deeply divided that we can't agree on this scientific fact, correct?
And if we can increase mileage, it means we can - however slightly - conserve fuel and literally not burn through it so quickly, is this also not a good thing?
So Barack Obama makes a statement, seemingly innocuous at the time (one would think), encouraging Joe Citizen to think about ways we can help out every day. In baby-steps. Fine.
OK, so the conservative talking heads pick up on the issue, and the next thing you know, "Obama's energy plan is to inflate your tires!" - as if this is the only thing he's suggesting, or as if he thinks that this will fix everything.
Obama never said that this was a fix-all, yet he is absolutely lambasted by people like Sean Hannity and Victoria Taft for ... for what, exactly? Trying to be helpful? For giving some kind of useful, non-governmental, every-day-life kind of information that could possibly <i>help</i> the situation, to whatever degree?
Oh, my. He's offering advice. How very, very ... <i>elitist</i> of him!
The attention this absolute NON-ISSUE is getting is beyond ridiculous. The sad part is, America is buying it. I can't figure out how or why, but these ridiculous attacks manage to stick.
And they are ridiculous, because the science behind Obama's statements seems pretty firm.
Obama said absolutely nothing wrong, and absolutely nothing controversial. Yet here we are, debating this RIDICULOUS issue with more vitriolic tirades against each other.
And why?
Because people like Victoria insist on spreading this nonsense like the manure that it is.
Let's put numbers aside for a moment. We're losing track of the big picture here. The point is this, bottom line:
Given the way the economy works today, and given our dependence on oil (good, bad, or otherwise), every little bit helps, right?
Would anyone not agree (aside from you-know-who) that taking a baby-step is better than taking no step at all? Or is it better to just wait until some improbable solution comes along that fixes everything at once (it ain't gonna be drilling, either)?
If it's been proven (and it has, Lew) that proper tire pressure and traveling at proper speeds can help increase mileage, it's a good thing, right? We're not so deeply divided that we can't agree on this scientific fact, correct?
And if we can increase mileage, it means we can - however slightly - conserve fuel and literally not burn through it so quickly, is this also not a good thing?
So Barack Obama makes a statement, seemingly innocuous at the time (one would think), encouraging Joe Citizen to think about ways we can help out every day. In baby-steps. Fine.
OK, so the conservative talking heads pick up on the issue, and the next thing you know, "Obama's energy plan is to inflate your tires!" - as if this is the only thing he's suggesting, or as if he thinks that this will fix everything.
Obama never said that this was a fix-all, yet he is absolutely lambasted by people like Sean Hannity and Victoria Taft for ... for what, exactly? Trying to be helpful? For giving some kind of useful, non-governmental, every-day-life kind of information that could possibly <i>help</i> the situation, to whatever degree?
Oh, my. He's offering advice. How very, very ... <i>elitist</i> of him!
The attention this absolute NON-ISSUE is getting is beyond ridiculous. The sad part is, America is buying it. I can't figure out how or why, but these ridiculous attacks manage to stick.
And they are ridiculous, because the science behind Obama's statements seems pretty firm.
Obama said absolutely nothing wrong, and absolutely nothing controversial. Yet here we are, debating this RIDICULOUS issue with more vitriolic tirades against each other.
And why?
Because people like Victoria insist on spreading this nonsense like the manure that it is.
because she'll probably erase what I wrote (again)
Part 1:
Funny how so many conservatives want to shrink government, yet when
Obama suggests a small step that we as individual citizens can take to
help conserve energy (wholly separate from any congressional action) he
is mocked. And people like Klatu say stuff like "Drill drill drill!
Make congress drill!"
So which is it? Personal responsibility, or big government?
Also, Victoria is (surprise!) wrong about what Obama said. Here's his exact quote:
"There
are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making
sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save
all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if
everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups?
You'd actually save just as much."
He never said anything about "replacing" America's oil reserves - he said that it would save consumers the amount we'd gain from drilling offshore.
Part 2:
Victoria, you wrote "Why don't you put the whole quote in there", and
proceed to emphasize "...But we could save ALL THE OIL THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT GETTIN' OFF DRILLING..."
As if I had left that out. As if, indeed.
Please put on your glasses and re-read my post.
I'll re-post the quote that I put in my last entry, with a nice bold-face font to help you if you need it:
""There
are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making
sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save
all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much."
Funny how so many conservatives want to shrink government, yet when
Obama suggests a small step that we as individual citizens can take to
help conserve energy (wholly separate from any congressional action) he
is mocked. And people like Klatu say stuff like "Drill drill drill!
Make congress drill!"
So which is it? Personal responsibility, or big government?
Also, Victoria is (surprise!) wrong about what Obama said. Here's his exact quote:
"There
are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making
sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save
all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if
everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups?
You'd actually save just as much."
He never said anything about "replacing" America's oil reserves - he said that it would save consumers the amount we'd gain from drilling offshore.
Part 2:
Victoria, you wrote "Why don't you put the whole quote in there", and
proceed to emphasize "...But we could save ALL THE OIL THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT GETTIN' OFF DRILLING..."
As if I had left that out. As if, indeed.
Please put on your glasses and re-read my post.
I'll re-post the quote that I put in my last entry, with a nice bold-face font to help you if you need it:
""There
are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making
sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save
all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much."
On tire pressure
.You are a pathetic, ignorant lemming. I don't understand why this is supposed to be "funny".
From <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes">TIME Magazine Online</a>:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
If that's not to your liking, perhaps this story from the <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/NEWS15/80804084">Detroit Free Press" is better.
I know the president doesn't believe in science, buy maybe someone here will take this article from <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4KWTFM8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f948d8c8782911e143d07e195e91c93a">ScienceDirect.com</a> a little more seriously.
It says (bold added):
The study indicates that <b>substantial benefits</b> would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary <b>tire pressure checks</b> with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii)<b> reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers </b>that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.
From <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes">TIME Magazine Online</a>:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
If that's not to your liking, perhaps this story from the <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/NEWS15/80804084">Detroit Free Press" is better.
I know the president doesn't believe in science, buy maybe someone here will take this article from <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4KWTFM8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f948d8c8782911e143d07e195e91c93a">ScienceDirect.com</a> a little more seriously.
It says (bold added):
The study indicates that <b>substantial benefits</b> would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary <b>tire pressure checks</b> with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii)<b> reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers </b>that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Lew wrote: "You cannot give Clinton or Democrats a pass, no more than I can Republicans, who blocked efforts at utilizing our own resources for so long."
That's actually what I was hoping you would say. Seriously. In order to get anything done in the next 4 (to 8) years, both sides have to take responsibility and hold themselves accountable for the gigantic mess we're in.
And this is precisely why I think Hilary Clinton would have been a terrible choice for the Democrats - she's such a lightning rod simply because of her last name that I can't imagine anyone from the right trying to find common ground with her on important issues.
Conversely, I think there's enough resentment left in her from her last experience in the White House that I don't know if she could move past it in trying to deal with Republicans, either.
When you mention more politicians trying to achieve "party power" than working for the good of America, believe it or not, I'm right there with you. I absolutely agree. There are horrendous examples of this from both sides.
I read the Bush speech, and given what we now know about how Enron was responsible for the blackouts, could only roll my eyes when I got to the part about California and its energy issues. (Please note, this "eye roll" is not a knock on Bush, just on the sad state of affairs such as it is. I'm just saying.)
As far as the "rapid regression" in the last 18 months, the roots go much deeper into this administration than just the last year and a half.
Banks failing, for instance, are a result of loans given to high-risk homebuyers, which didn't start once the Democrats took office. The "housing boom" that George Bush was so proud of was clearly misread by many, and it pre-dates Democratic control of the Congress.
And obviously, the cost of the Iraq war looms large. It's costing BILLIONS of dollars every month, and as I understand it (I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong), most of the funding comes from emergency spending bills. It's not built into the budget. So the government (which you have to admit has actually *grown* under George Bush, the exact reverse of what most Republicans believe should happen) spends tons and tons of money anyway, getting more out of control, before Iraq has even been accounted for.
That started LONG before the Democrats took office. And yes, I realize you'll counter-argue that the Democrats supported the war resolution and all the rest, but the point is that George Bush and his administration have bungled so many aspects of the war, undoubtedly resulting in many, many billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money.
The debt goes up, China's economy grows, national landmarks are purchased by foreign interests, banks are closing, people are losing their homes, New Orleans STILL isn't rebuilt ...
You can't pin all of that on 18 months worth of Democratic control of the Congress. Can you?
That's actually what I was hoping you would say. Seriously. In order to get anything done in the next 4 (to 8) years, both sides have to take responsibility and hold themselves accountable for the gigantic mess we're in.
And this is precisely why I think Hilary Clinton would have been a terrible choice for the Democrats - she's such a lightning rod simply because of her last name that I can't imagine anyone from the right trying to find common ground with her on important issues.
Conversely, I think there's enough resentment left in her from her last experience in the White House that I don't know if she could move past it in trying to deal with Republicans, either.
When you mention more politicians trying to achieve "party power" than working for the good of America, believe it or not, I'm right there with you. I absolutely agree. There are horrendous examples of this from both sides.
I read the Bush speech, and given what we now know about how Enron was responsible for the blackouts, could only roll my eyes when I got to the part about California and its energy issues. (Please note, this "eye roll" is not a knock on Bush, just on the sad state of affairs such as it is. I'm just saying.)
As far as the "rapid regression" in the last 18 months, the roots go much deeper into this administration than just the last year and a half.
Banks failing, for instance, are a result of loans given to high-risk homebuyers, which didn't start once the Democrats took office. The "housing boom" that George Bush was so proud of was clearly misread by many, and it pre-dates Democratic control of the Congress.
And obviously, the cost of the Iraq war looms large. It's costing BILLIONS of dollars every month, and as I understand it (I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong), most of the funding comes from emergency spending bills. It's not built into the budget. So the government (which you have to admit has actually *grown* under George Bush, the exact reverse of what most Republicans believe should happen) spends tons and tons of money anyway, getting more out of control, before Iraq has even been accounted for.
That started LONG before the Democrats took office. And yes, I realize you'll counter-argue that the Democrats supported the war resolution and all the rest, but the point is that George Bush and his administration have bungled so many aspects of the war, undoubtedly resulting in many, many billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money.
The debt goes up, China's economy grows, national landmarks are purchased by foreign interests, banks are closing, people are losing their homes, New Orleans STILL isn't rebuilt ...
You can't pin all of that on 18 months worth of Democratic control of the Congress. Can you?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
In case they're deleted again:
TNR, so - I want to get this straight - Bill Clinton messed up (in your opinion), but when given the chance to change direction and history, Bush and his rubber-stamp Republicans of the early part of this decade did nothing.
And though the Republican controlled everything did nothing FOR YEARS, it's still Clinton's fault?
*********
Victoria and Lew - I'm not sure what you're arguing with me here. I only said (or was trying to say, at least) that the "economic terrorism", or whatever we want to call it, isn't "fearmongering" in as much as it's *actually happening*.
As I said above, I heard many post-9/11 reports and analysis that indicated that Bin Laden's goal wasn't to take down the towers so much as that it was to create financial havoc as a result. The towers were the means to an end, not the ultimate goal.
As I said, this isn't "fearmongering" - it actually happened.
"Fearmongering" is, to me, changing Homeland Security's color-coded threat levels (remember that?) close to election time (like in 2004). It's getting Fox News to pump up stories about dirty bombs. It's saying that electing Democrats will directly result more terrorism. Stuff like that.
***********
Three other quick thoughts:
1. The stimulus checks sure worked like a charm for the economy, didn't they?
2. We should all let out a gigantic sigh of relief that our congress was not duped into supporting President Bush's idea to privatize Social Security. Given the way the stock market has tumbled in recent days and weeks, can you imagine if our grandparents found their Social Security savings pounded into oblivion at the time they need that money most?
3. In another thread, someone posed a question about whether or not Barack Obama will be blamed for a recession once Bush is out of office, the way Bush was blamed for the economic turmoils he experienced when Bill Clinton left office.
This assumes that Obama will be elected President (which I believe will happen, but that's neither here nor there in terms of this argument).
Say McCain wins, and the recession continues. Do you blame McCain, or do you blame Bush? Because you can't blame Clinton again, not this time.
(Though I know the answer - you'll blame the Democrats anyway.)
TNR, so - I want to get this straight - Bill Clinton messed up (in your opinion), but when given the chance to change direction and history, Bush and his rubber-stamp Republicans of the early part of this decade did nothing.
And though the Republican controlled everything did nothing FOR YEARS, it's still Clinton's fault?
*********
Victoria and Lew - I'm not sure what you're arguing with me here. I only said (or was trying to say, at least) that the "economic terrorism", or whatever we want to call it, isn't "fearmongering" in as much as it's *actually happening*.
As I said above, I heard many post-9/11 reports and analysis that indicated that Bin Laden's goal wasn't to take down the towers so much as that it was to create financial havoc as a result. The towers were the means to an end, not the ultimate goal.
As I said, this isn't "fearmongering" - it actually happened.
"Fearmongering" is, to me, changing Homeland Security's color-coded threat levels (remember that?) close to election time (like in 2004). It's getting Fox News to pump up stories about dirty bombs. It's saying that electing Democrats will directly result more terrorism. Stuff like that.
***********
Three other quick thoughts:
1. The stimulus checks sure worked like a charm for the economy, didn't they?
2. We should all let out a gigantic sigh of relief that our congress was not duped into supporting President Bush's idea to privatize Social Security. Given the way the stock market has tumbled in recent days and weeks, can you imagine if our grandparents found their Social Security savings pounded into oblivion at the time they need that money most?
3. In another thread, someone posed a question about whether or not Barack Obama will be blamed for a recession once Bush is out of office, the way Bush was blamed for the economic turmoils he experienced when Bill Clinton left office.
This assumes that Obama will be elected President (which I believe will happen, but that's neither here nor there in terms of this argument).
Say McCain wins, and the recession continues. Do you blame McCain, or do you blame Bush? Because you can't blame Clinton again, not this time.
(Though I know the answer - you'll blame the Democrats anyway.)
Thursday, July 10, 2008
p.i.A.k.o. #2
Thanks, Keith. Other people can conduct themselves or express themselves in any way they see fit personally, but I tend to write from the heart and use phrases like "I think ..." or "I believe ..." Maybe it's fruitless because I'm too altruistic sometimes, but it's how I've always been. It also helps me to avoid many arguments regarding semantics, nuances of laws, and minutia of which I'm not an expert. In other words, it keeps me from talking out of my butt - something I see a LOT of people doing around here far too often.
You (or Lew, or Victoria, or anyone) can disagree with my viewpoint, and that's fine. What I take offense to is a lot of the unwarranted name calling that results from the disagreements. Last time I checked, I was a registered Independent, not a Communist or Socialist. Imagine that. But the names sure do fly around, don't they?
Anyway, believe me, I absolutely understand the argument about "illegals" becoming, for lack of a better term, "legals". I also understand that law is law, and no citizen or elected officials is above it (cough, cough, Messrs. Cheney and Bush).
I also fully understand that many illegals are probably scared to start the legalization process, because they don't know how to do it, because they're not sure they're "smart" enough (to learn English, to take the naturalization exam, to figure out taxes, or to even fill out an application correctly, etc.), or because admitting they're here "illegally" prior to beginning the process could get them thrown in jail or deported.
Now, if ICE or any other group can prove that the center is illegal, yes - it's a major problem that will have to be dealt with. For reasons such as this very one (legality vs. humanitarian issues), I'm glad I'm not a politician myself.
But until this becomes a proven fact - any my opinion on the whole thing could very well change if we find that out, and to what extent - it's supposition, and I don't think it's fair to make assumptions about the center, the intent of the city to run it, or the people who utilize it.
The way I see it, for now at least, is that the city is trying to help the people who live here. It's trying to help real, live human beings who may need assistance.
I'm not a religious guy myself, but I do remember hearing a little something about "love thy neighbor." Seems to me, this is one way of doing just that.
One other quick point. You wrote, "... they can stand wherever the heck they want to get a penny-per-day job ...". I realize that you are using a generalization to make a point, and that's fair enough, but I think a center such as this one does, in fact, achieve a humanitarian goal, at least in theory: it prevents abuse of day labor by employers, as there is at least some degree of governmental oversight.
I think that a city-run program prevents day-labor employers from quasi-slavery or extortion. Who is to say that a guy who picks up a day laborer on the street corner won't stiff him on pay for work done, or that the employer won't say "we're not paying you for your work, but you're going to keep working for us anyway because if you complain, we'll report you."
Never having been a day laborer, I don't know if stuff like that actually happens. But conceivably it could, right? Having an organized central "brain" can eliminate (or at least minimize) the possibility of something like that happening. At least, I hope it would.
Is it a perfect system? No, absolutely not. Given the circumstances, though, I honestly think it does more good than harm. I really do.
And people can disagree with me and my opinions, and that's fine, but if we can't help (not give handouts to, but HELP) those among us who need the help most ... man, I just don't want to be a part of that kind of world. That's not the kind of place this country ought to be.
You (or Lew, or Victoria, or anyone) can disagree with my viewpoint, and that's fine. What I take offense to is a lot of the unwarranted name calling that results from the disagreements. Last time I checked, I was a registered Independent, not a Communist or Socialist. Imagine that. But the names sure do fly around, don't they?
Anyway, believe me, I absolutely understand the argument about "illegals" becoming, for lack of a better term, "legals". I also understand that law is law, and no citizen or elected officials is above it (cough, cough, Messrs. Cheney and Bush).
I also fully understand that many illegals are probably scared to start the legalization process, because they don't know how to do it, because they're not sure they're "smart" enough (to learn English, to take the naturalization exam, to figure out taxes, or to even fill out an application correctly, etc.), or because admitting they're here "illegally" prior to beginning the process could get them thrown in jail or deported.
Now, if ICE or any other group can prove that the center is illegal, yes - it's a major problem that will have to be dealt with. For reasons such as this very one (legality vs. humanitarian issues), I'm glad I'm not a politician myself.
But until this becomes a proven fact - any my opinion on the whole thing could very well change if we find that out, and to what extent - it's supposition, and I don't think it's fair to make assumptions about the center, the intent of the city to run it, or the people who utilize it.
The way I see it, for now at least, is that the city is trying to help the people who live here. It's trying to help real, live human beings who may need assistance.
I'm not a religious guy myself, but I do remember hearing a little something about "love thy neighbor." Seems to me, this is one way of doing just that.
One other quick point. You wrote, "... they can stand wherever the heck they want to get a penny-per-day job ...". I realize that you are using a generalization to make a point, and that's fair enough, but I think a center such as this one does, in fact, achieve a humanitarian goal, at least in theory: it prevents abuse of day labor by employers, as there is at least some degree of governmental oversight.
I think that a city-run program prevents day-labor employers from quasi-slavery or extortion. Who is to say that a guy who picks up a day laborer on the street corner won't stiff him on pay for work done, or that the employer won't say "we're not paying you for your work, but you're going to keep working for us anyway because if you complain, we'll report you."
Never having been a day laborer, I don't know if stuff like that actually happens. But conceivably it could, right? Having an organized central "brain" can eliminate (or at least minimize) the possibility of something like that happening. At least, I hope it would.
Is it a perfect system? No, absolutely not. Given the circumstances, though, I honestly think it does more good than harm. I really do.
And people can disagree with me and my opinions, and that's fine, but if we can't help (not give handouts to, but HELP) those among us who need the help most ... man, I just don't want to be a part of that kind of world. That's not the kind of place this country ought to be.
acronyms
Think A For Truth - that one fits, I think.
Truth Aand Fact, Theoretically - I like that one, too.
Talk About Failed Topics.
Fun, fun, fun!
Truth Aand Fact, Theoretically - I like that one, too.
Talk About Failed Topics.
Fun, fun, fun!
re: p.i.A.k.o. Detention Center ...
I saw the acronym thing on day one, but it seemed too obvious to point out, so I didn't ... and it kept going, and going, and nobody mentioned it. It was the elephant in the room. It had to be someone, right?
As far as the rest about a "lack of definitive proof", this is one of the major issues I have with the direction this country has headed in in recent years. Not just during the Bush administration, mind you, but overall as a snowballing type effect: nobody's innocent until proven guilty anymore. It's the opposite.
I should have put this in my first post, but didn't: I find it somewhat ironic that Victoria makes all of these claims (8 uses of "illegal", one use of "lawbreaker"), yet the title of her next post was "jumping to conclusions".
I think it's a shame that we're all so cynical that nobody trusts anybody regarding anything anymore.
Are some illegal? Likely. Are they *all*? Who knows.
Because of what I'm going to write, I will be labeled by some as a communist, a socialist, or a "blame USA first" proponent (at this point, the insults reek of desperation).
Here's why I have no problem with the center existing:
There are jobs. Some employer has tasks for which they need employees. There is nothing stopping whites, Asians, Eskimos, albinos, the transgendered, or Victoria herself from going to this center to get one for a day.
(In fact, maybe this would be an interesting experiment - Victoria, how about taking a day off from the radio gig and waiting at the employment center yourself to see what goes on there? Maybe you'll find something out that will change my mind on this issue.)
Perhaps the money the employees make will be spent locally, helping the economy. Perhaps some of it will be sent to the families of the employees in another town, another state, or another country.
Whatever the amount of money this is can't compare, I would assume, to the money being spent by American companies outsourcing call centers to India, building factories in Mexico, or making textiles and clothing in Asia.
I think we're being penny wise and pound foolish in a lot of ways.
Since I expect my post to be deleted, here's what I wrote (so I can copy/paste it back onto her blog as often as necessary). There is NO foul language included, Vickie!
I also think that we're (and I speak of us directly, including Klatu/Jack) very lucky to be in the positions we find ourselves. We have safe places to live, we have computers, and we can afford internet service. These are luxuries to many, many people.
If a day center is going to pay someone - illegal or not - to help pay for basic needs, then as a HUMAN BEING who cares for other human beings, I say so be it. To some, this makes me un-American, because it doesn't "put America first". Whatever. White America can go wait in line and grab those jobs, then, and keep the "illegals" from getting them.
If not, there are jobs and people willing to do them. Good for those people for trying to better their own lives and become productive members of society.
As far as the rest about a "lack of definitive proof", this is one of the major issues I have with the direction this country has headed in in recent years. Not just during the Bush administration, mind you, but overall as a snowballing type effect: nobody's innocent until proven guilty anymore. It's the opposite.
I should have put this in my first post, but didn't: I find it somewhat ironic that Victoria makes all of these claims (8 uses of "illegal", one use of "lawbreaker"), yet the title of her next post was "jumping to conclusions".
I think it's a shame that we're all so cynical that nobody trusts anybody regarding anything anymore.
Are some illegal? Likely. Are they *all*? Who knows.
Because of what I'm going to write, I will be labeled by some as a communist, a socialist, or a "blame USA first" proponent (at this point, the insults reek of desperation).
Here's why I have no problem with the center existing:
There are jobs. Some employer has tasks for which they need employees. There is nothing stopping whites, Asians, Eskimos, albinos, the transgendered, or Victoria herself from going to this center to get one for a day.
(In fact, maybe this would be an interesting experiment - Victoria, how about taking a day off from the radio gig and waiting at the employment center yourself to see what goes on there? Maybe you'll find something out that will change my mind on this issue.)
Perhaps the money the employees make will be spent locally, helping the economy. Perhaps some of it will be sent to the families of the employees in another town, another state, or another country.
Whatever the amount of money this is can't compare, I would assume, to the money being spent by American companies outsourcing call centers to India, building factories in Mexico, or making textiles and clothing in Asia.
I think we're being penny wise and pound foolish in a lot of ways.
Since I expect my post to be deleted, here's what I wrote (so I can copy/paste it back onto her blog as often as necessary). There is NO foul language included, Vickie!
I also think that we're (and I speak of us directly, including Klatu/Jack) very lucky to be in the positions we find ourselves. We have safe places to live, we have computers, and we can afford internet service. These are luxuries to many, many people.
If a day center is going to pay someone - illegal or not - to help pay for basic needs, then as a HUMAN BEING who cares for other human beings, I say so be it. To some, this makes me un-American, because it doesn't "put America first". Whatever. White America can go wait in line and grab those jobs, then, and keep the "illegals" from getting them.
If not, there are jobs and people willing to do them. Good for those people for trying to better their own lives and become productive members of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
