Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
"That is because he is too interested in popularity contests and people liking him then in being president."
Lois, you've expressed this view regularly, and I think it's off-target. Obama doesn't strike me as trying to win popularity contests so much as living in some unrealistic world where he thinks he can negotiate a fair compromise with the Right. In spite of the fact he's been bit in the ass repeatedly thusfar, he seems to maintain his overly-idealistic and capitulating view. It doesn't gain him anything but animosity from both sides.
Really, the only way Repubs would be satisfied would be if Obama resigned yesterday, and Sarah Bachmann took office. You yourself go to great lengths to describe why you think Obama sucks, but even if those characteristics were flipped, you'd find something else to rip on him for. Excuse me, then, if I don't take your lists of shortcomings (listed above) very seriously.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Mercy..
Degaine wrote..
LEB/Lois had a hostile, condescending, disrespectul attitude towards anyone who disagreed with her point of view. While not virulent or ad hominem in style, this attitude came through loud and clear in just about every single post.
Perhaps that is where his reciprocal hostile attitude originates?
Most of us believe this. We must be idiots. You are so nice.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
John said:
Ken, To be fair, I don't think that Lois was talking about the Imam. I doubt she listened to the tape. I think that She was talking to me about an earlier conversation.
Thats one of the problems that occurs on a forum, when people don't address who they are talking to.
Edit: Looks like she went back and addressed that post to me.
Oh, John, I wasn't confused, at all. I was totally aware that Lois was ignoring my post and letting the opportunity to actually hear first hand from the man, and the religion to which he and a billion others, including a lot of other Americans like him that she has chosen to hate, pass by. I was referring to the derogatory remarks that she has made about him, at length, in the past which she now attempts to disavow by her tool of using this new name we all know to be false.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
fattrad wrote:
This about sums it up:
The comments Sunday by McCain and other conservatives made clear that they think the budget standoff is due to the refusal by Democrats to accept that government must shrink in a major way.
Honest question, do you understand how the vote for the debt ceiling works?
Congress already voted for the taxes (or cuts) and the spending that require the debt ceiling to be raised. Congress already asked (via vote) the Treasury Department to spend the money. Up until now, voting for the debt ceiling to be raised was a simple formality.
Of course very few in the press report about this, and Republicans are hoping it stays that way so that they can play their very dangerous and very hypocritical game of political poker with the US economy.
If the as#@&%es did not want the debt ceiling to be raised, they never should have (already) voted for a spending package that would require the debt ceiling to be raised.
What about all of this do you not understand?
This is extortion, pure and simple.
Where's the patriotism and support of the president in a time of crisis as demanded by Republicans in the aftermath of 9/11 and throughout the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency?
I know you like to troll, but are you really this big a hypocrite (and this ignorant?)?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
Now I won't call anyone names, not my style, but only partisan hacks of the most f*#king idiotic proportions would think that Obama is governing from anything other than a center-right position.
Comments in apogee's last couple of posts hit the nail on the head.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
However, he is not suppose to be playing partisan politics while the nation's economy goes to hell.
That's the job of House Republicans.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I was going to make a rare post to this thread... but jghedge beat me to it... David Brooks is someone who often annoys me but makes me think carefully about my own positions on various political matters... he has the ability to actually be somewhat rational (as long as he stays away from religion).
But also in today's NYTimes, in the "Science" section is an article by Natalie Angier
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/science/05angier.html?ref=science
with the concluding paragraph:
Interestingly, another recent study found that when Americans were given the chance to construct their version of the optimal wealth gradient for America, both Republicans and Democrats came up with a chart that looked like Sweden’s. There’s no need to insult the meat in the land of lutefisk.
Maybe Lolli can use the material and weave it into one of her "Stereotype" cartoons...
The paper referred to is here the .pdf version is here
Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1) 9–12
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Michael I. Norton[1] and Dan Ariely[2]
[1]Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, and
[2]Department of Psychology, Duke University, Durham, NC
Abstract
Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of ‘‘regular’’ Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to ‘‘build a better America’’ by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.
[the concluding paragraph]
Given the consensus among disparate groups on the gap between an ideal distribution of wealth and the actual level of wealth inequality, why are more Americans, especially those with low income, not advocating for greater redistribution of wealth? First, our results demonstrate that Americans appear to drastically underestimate the current level of wealth inequality, suggesting they may simply be unaware of the gap. Second, just as people have erroneous beliefs about the actual level of wealth inequality, they may also hold overly optimistic beliefs about opportunities for social mobility in the United States (Benabou & Ok, 2001; Charles & Hurst, 2003; Keister, 2005), beliefs which in turn may drive support for unequal distributions of wealth. Third, despite the fact that conservatives and liberals in our sample agree that the current level of inequality is far from ideal, public disagreements about the causes of that inequality may drown out this consensus (Alesina & Angeletos, 2005; Piketty, 1995). Finally, and more broadly, Americans exhibit a general disconnect between their attitudes toward economic inequality and their self-interest and public policy preferences (Bartels, 2005; Fong, 2001), suggesting that even given increased awareness of the gap between ideal and actual wealth distributions, Americans may remain unlikely to advocate for policies that would narrow this gap.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
jghedge and Ed, thanks for the links. Good stuff.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Well Lois it starts with ignorant twits like you voting for traitorous unAmerican fuks like Reagan and Bush, watching it all go to hell in a handbasket then wanting to go backwards and do it again.
All while repeatedly spouting discredited lies as facts.
|
|
Blitzo
Social climber
Earth
|
|
10,000 routes and 200 FAs. That's a pretty good year!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
i disagree with christopher hitchens' atheism, but the guy does have a clear understanding of good and evil:
Some questions for the "activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, July 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM ET
Palestinians ride on boats at the port of Gaza City during a rally in support of the Gaza-bound international Freedom Flotilla. Click image to expand.Palestinian boats and the Freedom Flotilla in the port of Gaza CityThe tale of the Gaza "flotilla" seems set to become a regular summer feature, bobbing along happily on the inside pages with an occasional update. A nice sidebar for reporters covering the Greek debt crisis: a built-in mild tension of "will they, won't they?"; a cast of not very colorful characters but one we almost begin to feel we know personally. Such cheery and breezy slogans—"the audacity of hope" and "free Gaza"—and such an easy storyline that it practically writes itself. Since Israel adopts a posture that almost guarantees a reaction of some sort in the not-too-distant future, and since there was such a frisson of violence the last time the little fleet set sail, there's no reason for it not to become a regular seasonal favorite.
PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...REPRINTSSINGLE PAGE
FacebookDiggRedditStumbleUponCLOSE
However, given the luxury of time, might it not be possible to ask the "activists" onboard just a few questions? (Activist is a good neutral word, isn't it, with largely positive connotations? Even flotilla, with its reassuring diminuendo, has a "small is beautiful" sound to it.) Most of the speculation so far has been to do with methods and intentions, allowing for many avowals about peaceful tactics and so forth, but this is soft-centered coverage. I would like to know a little more about the political ambitions and implications of the enterprise.
It seems safe and fair to say that the flotilla and its leadership work in reasonably close harmony with Hamas, which constitutes the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The political leadership of this organization is headquartered mainly in Gaza itself. But its military coordination is run out of Damascus, where the regime of Bashar Assad is currently at war with increasingly large sections of the long-oppressed Syrian population. Refugee camps, some with urgent humanitarian requirements, are making their appearance on the border between Syria and Turkey (the government of the latter being somewhat sympathetic to the purposes of the flotilla). In these circumstances, isn't it legitimate to strike up a conversation with the "activists" and ask them where they come out on the uprising against hereditary Baathism in Syria?
Advertisement
Then again, Syria's other proxy party in the region is Hezbollah, which operates a state-within-a-state and maintains a private army on the territory of Lebanon. Senior associates of this group have recently been named in a U.N. indictment concerning the broad-daylight murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hezbollah's leadership and propaganda organs, while refusing all cooperation with the United Nations, are currently expressing undying solidarity with the Assad regime, which relies additionally on heavy support from the dictatorship in Iran. Again, the Hamas leadership seems compromised at best by its association with this local Tehran-Damascus axis. Surely there must be some spokesman for the blockade-runners who is able to give us his thinking on this question, too? At a time of widespread democratic and pluralist revolution in the region, Hamas imposes its own version of theocracy on Gaza and seems otherwise aligned with the forces that stand athwart the hope of continued and deeper change. Who wants to volunteer time to make this outfit look more presentable? Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation, it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard and warder.
Only a few weeks ago, the Hamas regime in Gaza became the only governing authority in the world—by my count—to express outrage and sympathy at the death of Osama Bin Laden. As the wavelets lap in the Greek harbors, and the sunshine beats down, doesn't any journalist want to know whether the "activists" have discussed this element in their partners' world outlook? Does Alice Walker seriously have no comment?
Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don't mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any "activist" claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either.
The little boats cannot make much difference to the welfare of Gaza either way, since the materials being shipped are in such negligible quantity. The chief significance of the enterprise is therefore symbolic. And the symbolism, when examined even cursorily, doesn't seem too adorable. The intended beneficiary of the stunt is a ruling group with close ties to two of the most retrograde dictatorships in the Middle East, each of which has recently been up to its elbows in the blood of its own civilians. The same group also manages to maintain warm relations with, or at the very least to make cordial remarks about, both Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, a document that was once accurately described as a "warrant for genocide" forms part of the declared political platform of the aforesaid group. There is something about this that fails to pass a smell test. I wonder whether any reporter on the scene will now take me up on this.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Just got through reading that Brooks' column. Damn, he sure rips his party a new one. He's absolutely right though. The extremists have taken over.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
An excerpt from Brooks column:
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Dr.F...I'm at 1700 FA's, nothing compared to Lorita, Skipt, Fatty and Bookie.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Brooks nails it HARD in that article...so hard, in fact, that he's likely to be run out of the GOP like David Frum, or a host of other rational conservatives as the party 'purifies' itself.
It's amusing to watch the Repug candidates chant their anti-tax mantra at campaign rallies (Bachmann, most recently & regularly). It's like 1990 all over again ("Read my lips-no new taxes")- rigid, simplistic positions like that came back and bit the GOP in the arse, good & hard. It appears that the GOP has not learned that lesson at all, and in fact, is on track to be slapped down again. I laugh robustly.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
It's amusing to watch the Repug candidates chant their anti-tax mantra at campaign rallies (Bachmann, most recently & regularly). It's like 1990 all over again ("Read my lips-no new taxes")- rigid, simplistic positions like that came back and bit the GOP in the arse, good & hard. It appears that the GOP has not learned that lesson at all, and in fact, is on track to be slapped down again. I laugh robustly.
They keep thinking, "If only their candidates were truly conservative, they'd really win big."
You see that attitude here, too.
They don't get it. Liberals by and large understand that political necessity requires that concessions to the right must be made. Brooks understands that the Republicans must do this too, but he is an outsider, increasingly, within his party.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
So, how IS that plan of running extreme "pure" Republican candidates working out?
It cost the Repubs the US Senate eight months ago, pretty good plan huh?
It cost them the House NY 26th just a couple months ago.
And how are extreme Repub State Governors doing?
Well, not so good, some are facing recalls, and in four states would be thrown out and replaced by Democrats if the election was held now.
Really good thinking, no compromise, no meet in the middle, just extreme and pure.
And who is polling the best for the Repub Presidential Primary?
Tea Party darling Michele Bachman.
Run Michele, Run.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Let's make it $15,000 that Obama goes another 4.
Chickenhawk
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Run, Michelle, run!!!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!