6493 replies to this topic

[akoff]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

Rush's reply to Byron YorkeThere are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[85suited]

One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.Flying in a private jet does more than four times the carbon emission damage to the environment than flying a regular commercial jet. Sit in coach, you might save a polar bear

[hblask]

Jan 26: The economic ignorance begins with Obama's announcement about raising fuel efficiency standards. Apparently, Obama has never heard of the concept of unintended consequences. See, what happens is it drives up the cost of cars, making people hold on to their old polluting beaters for longer.This experiment has already been tried, and it doesn't work.-1

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Monday, January 26th, 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Jan 26: The economic ignorance begins with Obama's announcement about raising fuel efficiency standards. Apparently, Obama has never heard of the concept of unintended consequences. See, what happens is it drives up the cost of cars, making people hold on to their old polluting beaters for longer.This experiment has already been tried, and it doesn't work.-1

Hang on now, isn't the proposal is to allow states to set higher standards if they choose to? Doesn't that fall into the category of moving power towards the local? I'm surprised that you wouldn't like that one.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Monday, January 26th, 2009, 3:01 PM, said:

Hang on now, isn't the proposal is to allow states to set higher standards if they choose to? Doesn't that fall into the category of moving power towards the local? I'm surprised that you wouldn't like that one.

You're correct, and that was my initial reaction. I think it is better that each state set their own standards. But I gave it a negative because there were actually two parts, and the second part was to start enforcing the federal standards that Bush said no to.I hope I'm not misreading the story, but it looked like two actions: let CA create their own standards, and enforce harsher federal standards. Knowing CA, both parts will turn out poorly.

[El Guapo]

hblask, on Monday, January 26th, 2009, 1:04 PM, said:

You're correct, and that was my initial reaction. I think it is better that each state set their own standards. But I gave it a negative because there were actually two parts, and the second part was to start enforcing the federal standards that Bush said no to.I hope I'm not misreading the story, but it looked like two actions: let CA create their own standards, and enforce harsher federal standards. Knowing CA, both parts will turn out poorly.

The thing is that this will force the auto manufacturers to either create them all on the CA standard, because we by far have the most vehicles, or produce two emission systems for each car. Neither will be cost effective.

[Balloon guy]

El Guapo, on Monday, January 26th, 2009, 1:06 PM, said:

The thing is that this will force the auto manufacturers to either create them all on the CA standard, because we by far have the most vehicles, or produce two emission systems for each car. Neither will be cost effective.

Will California be allowed to deny entry of cars set to Idaho's standards?If not than look for the Idahoian Mail Boxes Etc. stores to expand their PO Boxes

[hblask]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 26th, 2009, 5:09 PM, said:

Will California be allowed to deny entry of cars set to Idaho's standards?

When I moved there for my stay in the 90s, they penalized you for bringing in a car that didn't have a CA emission sticker. It didn't matter if you passed the smog test with flying colors, you still have to pay a $350 fine per car. So they are happy to allow cars from other states so that they can blow it on corporate handouts.

[hblask]

http://www.cnn.com/2...hics/index.htmlSo much for a positive rating on THAT one.

[BigDMcGee]

AmScray, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 1:02 PM, said:

Good. Then perhaps you would be willing to pit your solid comprehension of real-world goings on against my disconnection with a little wager. We can post with a neutral 3rd party.You bet that anyone from the Bush crew will be tried for war crimes.I bet that no one from the administration will be tried for war crimes.I will lay you 6-1- minimum bet $100- and we can set up some sort of a time frame. Now, I can't forecast what your excuse will be for not taking the bet (I will make side action on that too), but if I'm wrong and you sincerely believe that you're correct and firmly grasping reality- that there is indeed a realistic chance of this happening- then surely one parallel universe in five would indict them in a court of law, so I'm giving you a +ev situation to prove that you sincerely believe in what you're saying, as opposed to being a typical delusionaly idealistic leftist retard prattling a bunch of pie-eyed nonsense that has no application whatsoever to the real world, even though you insist that it does. Time to put your money where your mouth is, Corky.

A couple questions.. the first, what do you mean by Tried? Because, I mean, Kissenger was tried for war crimes, but he didn't exactly show up for the trial. And it was like 30 years after the fact, so the time frame of this bet, given historical precedent, would have to be pretty long. Second of all, what do you mean, exactly, by Bushes "Crew?" Like cabinet members only, or extended bush appointees? Would generals count? This wager sounds too abstract, and I think is just an attempt to shut someone up.

[Mercury69]

Apprently you guys are ****ed regardless of who is in office. Bye bye, Miss American Pie...

[Jeepster80125]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 9:52 PM, said:

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

AmScray, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 1:02 PM, said:

Good. Then perhaps you would be willing to pit your solid comprehension of real-world goings on against my disconnection with a little wager. We can post with a neutral 3rd party.You bet that anyone from the Bush crew will be tried for war crimes.I bet that no one from the administration will be tried for war crimes.I will lay you 6-1- minimum bet $100- and we can set up some sort of a time frame. Now, I can't forecast what your excuse will be for not taking the bet (I will make side action on that too), but if I'm wrong and you sincerely believe that you're correct and firmly grasping reality- that there is indeed a realistic chance of this happening- then surely one parallel universe in five would indict them in a court of law, so I'm giving you a +ev situation to prove that you sincerely believe in what you're saying, as opposed to being a typical delusionaly idealistic leftist retard prattling a bunch of pie-eyed nonsense that has no application whatsoever to the real world, even though you insist that it does. Time to put your money where your mouth is, Corky.

This poster (DonG) would rather stick his head in these threads, post some insults about the right, and leave without defending himself or his arguments, rather than participate in a discussion. I'm certain he's a moron and too scared to engage anyone who he thinks might be smarter than him, which is pretty much everyone.I wish he'd put his money where his mouth is, but it's not likely. Don't hold your breath scram.

[Balloon guy]

hblask, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 7:35 AM, said:

http://www.cnn.com/2...hics/index.htmlSo much for a positive rating on THAT one.

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't CNN a liberal bastion of leftist leaning reporters?And even they are noticing this?hmmm, must be a sad day at CNNLuckily there's always PMSNBC to cover for the Dems

[El Guapo]

Yesterday we had an annual review with a client we had not seen since early last year and she immediately starts talking about Obama. To paint a little bit of a picture, the county I work in is the most republican county in all of California. I think the population is 95% white, and most of our clients are 55 or older. This lady starts crooning over Obama, I am not using crooning as hyperbole either, she was clutching her hands to her chest smiling and looking UP as she praised the messiah Obama. Her words, not mine. She repeatedly said how much they love him and how he is going to save all of us and how she loves this stimulus package. It was, to say the least, a very bizarre start to a meeting. Luckily my colleague changed the topic quickly after that.

[akoff]

El Guapo, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

Yesterday we had an annual review with a client we had not seen since early last year and she immediately starts talking about Obama. To paint a little bit of a picture, the county I work in is the most republican county in all of California. I think the population is 95% white, and most of our clients are 55 or older. This lady starts crooning over Obama, I am not using crooning as hyperbole either, she was clutching her hands to her chest smiling and looking UP as she praised the messiah Obama. Her words, not mine. She repeatedly said how much they love him and how he is going to save all of us and how she loves this stimulus package. It was, to say the least, a very bizarre start to a meeting. Luckily my colleague changed the topic quickly after that.

Yea uhm....you may not want to discuss that topic with her! When sitting with clients and polotics comes up remain semi quiet, smell which way the they are going and nod your head as you agree with every stupid thing they say....then proceed to the bank, cash check and go be back to your office and take a shower...that my friend is being bipartisan!!!!

[hblask]

Remember all that stuff about "reaching across the aisle" and "bipartisan cooperation"? That was a limited time only offer, and it's expired already:http://www.twincitie...nes/ci_11580575

Quote

Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama's stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures "so we can put a number on what folks voted for and against," an administration aide said."It's clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs," the aide said.White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the lawmakers will have to answer to their constituents.And a Democratic official added: "We will run campaigns in their districts."And later today, MoveOn, Americans United for Change, AFSCME and SEIU will be announcing a new ad campaign targeting moderate Republican senators who might support the stimulus — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Charles Grassley of Iowa.The ad, which will run in the Washington market and in those states, consists of clips of the president talking about the stimulus, followed by the male voiceover, "Tell Congress to support the Obama plan for jobs, not the failed policies of the past."Letters on the screen say: "Tell Congress to support the Obama Plan." The president met privately with House Republicans at the Capitol, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had a private White House dinner for House GOP moderates, and the President had members of both parties and both chambers over for cocktails last night.But they did not peel off a single Republican.The tally took reporters by surprise: Aides had said the party's votes for the package might be in the single digits. So "zero" was a feat for House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who said on "Meet the Press" that he would oppose the package, and the next day asked members to follow him; House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, who nailed down the votes; and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana. Pence sensed his members falling under Obama's spell during their meeting Monday and brought them back by telling the President: "Know that we're praying for you. ... But know that there has been no negotiation [with us] on this bill - we had absolutely no say."Although a tactical triumph, the vote poses a risk to Republicans in the long run, with Democrats able to portray them as the party of "no" at a time when voters are hurting. Some House Republicans are likely to try to dilute the political risk by voting for the final version of the stimulus package after it passes the Senate.

[Nimue1995]

hblask, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 1:47 PM, said:

Remember all that stuff about "reaching across the aisle" and "bipartisan cooperation"? That was a limited time only offer, and it's expired already:http://www.twincitie...nes/ci_11580575

I watched the the amendments part of the debate on the bill and there was bipartisan support for all the amendments that I watched on the bill (about 5 before I had to go) and bipartisan yes votes to pass each of them. There were 3 Democratic amendments which got bipartisan support and 2 Republican amendments which also passed with bi-partisan support. So when the Republicans say they had no input into the bill, know that that's a lie. Funny that they wrote and passed those amendments only to vote no.

[85suited]

Nimue1995, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 3:19 PM, said:

I watched the the amendments part of the debate on the bill and there was bipartisan support for all the amendments that I watched on the bill (about 5 before I had to go) and bipartisan yes votes to pass each of them. There were 3 Democratic amendments which got bipartisan support and 2 Republican amendments which also passed with bi-partisan support. So when the Republicans say they had no input into the bill, know that that's a lie. Funny that they wrote and passed those amendments only to vote no.

Obviously the amendments weren't enough to garner their support of this piece of S**T bill Republicans won a few concessions, as Democrats deleted $20 million meant to re-sod the National Mall in D.C., and stripped about $200 million for contraceptive services

[HollywoodAFD]

hblask, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 9:35 AM, said:

http://www.cnn.com/2...hics/index.htmlSo much for a positive rating on THAT one.

I loved that one!In his campaign, he vowed that NO lobbyist would be in his administration. As of January 30...he has hired 21 registered federal lobbyist. WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist as a top aide Tuesday, the same day he announced rules aimed at reducing the role of lobbyists in agency decisions.Mark Patterson will serve as Geithner's chief of staff at Treasury, which oversees the government's $700 billion financial bailout program. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of that money.He makes up stories. He said "I had an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go liberate the concentration camps of Auschwitz." Liar... he had no uncle who served in the US army...not to mention that the US never went to those camps...ever. It was Russia who liberated that camp in 1945.I'm Canadian

[AmScray]

BigDMcGee, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 7:47 AM, said:

A couple questions.. the first, what do you mean by Tried? Because, I mean, Kissenger was tried for war crimes, but he didn't exactly show up for the trial. And it was like 30 years after the fact, so the time frame of this bet, given historical precedent, would have to be pretty long. Second of all, what do you mean, exactly, by Bushes "Crew?" Like cabinet members only, or extended bush appointees? Would generals count? This wager sounds too abstract, and I think is just an attempt to shut someone up.

No, it's definitely a real world wager. Obviously, certain terms would have to be clarified. For example, Bush being tried for War Crimes in Iran wouldn't count, but I'd accept a US court and just to sweeten the deal, I'd even spot him the Hague. As far as the "Bush Crew", we could clarify that too. Anything cabinet level of above, any General... Also, we would have to outline some sort of a timeframe. Obviously, I can't spot him from now until the end of time, as I wouldn't ever be able to collect, but I'd love to hear any time proposal he has.If he's seriously interested, I am 100% willing to wager on this and lay him a price.