OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

Post by **Jared** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:00 am

FatPitcher wrote: Oh, please. The agenda was not set by those people, it was set by Ayers, co-chairman of the agenda-setting arm of the CAC. Those people didn't chair the board of directors, Obama did. The agenda that came out of the CAC was ivory-tower radicalism, and it was driven by Ayers. All sort of extremist kooks, like Mike Klonsky, were connected to it. One Republican and one person who has contributed to Republicans at some point in their life on the board don't change that...but you already know that and are just throwing smoke.

Yes...those poor, powerless Board of Director members, just bullied into supporting all sorts of radical insanity. Oh, how I feel for them. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. If you want, you can read the technical report on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to learn more about it. Let me know if you find your crazy radicalism there. (And to preempt, I've read the Kurtz piece already, which boils down to Ayers = radical, ACORN = radical, therefore, the entire CAC is radical.)

Edit: and let's face it, keeping up with detailed arguments is too much brain work. Usually when I see a Jared post, I just think to myself, "is this really worth 2 hours of my time to dig into this material?" I could just add water to some pre-made arguments, but what's the point? I have better links than you?

If someone makes a claim in a discussion forum, they should be able to back it up with evidence and/or with logic. And "because Instapundit said so" doesn't count as either.

If there isn't evidence to back up those claims, or if they aren't logically consistent, then hey, this is an open forum. Sorry about the details...but really, a lot of the time, the crux of the argument is in the details....details that are at times wrong (see McCain and S.190) or logically inconsistent (see holding McCain to the same scrutiny as Obama re: connections).

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:03 am

From an article I just read from Liz Sidoti:

"Polls show the race competitive, with Obama having a slight advantage in a political landscape that dramatically favors Democrats and appears to be further trending toward them in part because of the intense focus on the economy."

Until my dying day I will never, ever understand the idea behind the economy 'dramatically favoring democrats'. It's the most ludicrous assertion in the world to me. It's like people don't even pay f'ing attention.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:06 am

Jared wrote:
If someone makes a claim in a discussion forum, they should be able to back it up with evidence and/or with logic. And "because Instapundit said so" doesn't count as either. If there isn't evidence to back up those claims, or if they aren't logically consistent, then hey, this is an open forum. Sorry about the details...but really, a lot of the time, the crux of the argument is in the details....details that are at times wrong (see McCain and S.190) or logically inconsistent (see holding McCain to the same scrutiny as Obama re: connections).

You know, Jared, I'm going to call you on that one. Define for me 'evidence and/or logic'. Because you have brushed aside a whole damned lot of it from Rob and others, simply because it doesn't gel with your worldview. You then try to pretend that you don't have a preset worldview, and simply 'review the facts before making a decision'. That is simply untrue from where I see it. You want to come across as this bastion of impartiality and reason, but you aren't, man. You just aren't.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:10 am

Jared wrote:
If someone makes a claim in a discussion forum, they should be able to back it up with evidence and/or with logic. And "because Instapundit said so" doesn't count as either.

Instapundit says to bite me!

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:12 am

Teal wrote:
Jared wrote:
If someone makes a claim in a discussion forum, they should be able to back it up with evidence and/or with logic. And "because Instapundit said so" doesn't count as either. If there isn't evidence to back up those claims, or if they aren't logically consistent, then hey, this is an open forum. Sorry about the details...but really, a lot of the time, the crux of the argument is in the details....details that are at times wrong (see McCain and S.190) or logically inconsistent (see holding McCain to the same scrutiny as Obama re: connections).
You know, Jared, I'm going to call you on that one. Define for me 'evidence and/or logic'. Because you have brushed aside a whole damned lot of it from Rob and others, simply because it doesn't gel with your worldview. You then try to pretend that you don't have a preset worldview, and simply 'review the facts before making a decision'. That is simply untrue from where I see it. You want to come across as this bastion of impartiality and reason, but you aren't, man. You just aren't.

Basically, if it's something bad about a Democrat, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's something bad about a Republican, it just has to be on the internet somewhere.

Post by **Jared** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:17 am

To start...

Or you could look at the last eight years, six being w/a Republican Congress, and then see what the financial outcome is...

And as for your most recent post, Teal, no, I'm not a "bastion of impartiality and reason"...I make mistakes, even though I try not to let biases get in the way.

Listen, if you think I'm just "brushing aside" the claims from others, then challenge me on them. By making that claim, it's obvious that you're discounting my arguments or evidence. Well, if that's the case, then challenge me. Find the flaws in my arguments, or the evidence countering my claims, and bring it.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:21 am

Jared wrote: And as for your most recent post, Teal, no, I'm not a "bastion of impartiality and reason"...I make mistakes, even though I try not to let biases get in the way.

Listen, if you think I'm just "brushing aside" the claims from others, then challenge me on them.

Okay...show me one instance when you have argued in favor of a conservative over a liberal, a republican over a democrat.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:23 am

JackB1 wrote:
wco81 wrote:Palin's third interview, with Katie Couric:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall
Funny how she couldn't site ONE EXAMPLE of "pushing for more regulation".
She seems to answer in these memorized blurbs that don't always address the question and when pressed for more details...she gets all squirmy. Now I see why they have been so guarded with her and the media.

Holy sh*t, that was bad. I know nothing about government and the current financial meltdown, and I could have sat there and given the same nebulous, talking point answers.

Sarah needs to bone up on those Cliff Notes fast. As JackB said, now we know why the campaign has shielded Palin from the media: Her grasp of specifics and policy details seem loose at best.

Her folksy charm is going to wear off really soon. Then what will we be left with, other than more fodder for Tina Fey?

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:26 am

Jared wrote: The CBS and NYT articles I posted before also support the same narrative, so it seems odd that multiple sources would be reporting Obama's involvement (including some before his presidential run), yet he had nothing to do with it. Maybe he worked on it before he was officially brought on as a co-sponsor? That's what it sounds like...

Never in the history of representative democracy has a legislator worked on a bill without getting his name on it.

Otherwise it's a bill falling in a forest.

Fatpitcher wrote:

Edit: and let's face it, keeping up with detailed arguments is too much brain work. Usually when I see a Jared post, I just think to myself, "is this really worth 2 hours of my time to dig into this material?" I could just add water to some pre-made arguments, but what's the point? I have better links than you?

You need to multi-task better!!!

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:45 am

I didn't read the article, didn't want to. I know what kind of claptrap Midler's up to, but it's not important. What IS is the sub heading of the article:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbi ... The_Planet

"SINGER BETTE MIDLER QUITS TOURING TO HELP SAVE THE PLANET"

I'm feeling more saved already...thanks Bette...

Post by **Jared** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:46 am

RobVarak wrote:
Jared wrote: The CBS and NYT articles I posted before also support the same narrative, so it seems odd that multiple sources would be reporting Obama's involvement (including some before his presidential run), yet he had nothing to do with it. Maybe he worked on it before he was officially brought on as a co-sponsor? That's what it sounds like...
Never in the history of representative democracy has a legislator worked on a bill without getting his name on it.

But he was co-sponsor, wasn't he? Or are you talking about being actual sponsor? (The ins and outs of credit in legislative work do confuse me...)

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:07 am

JackDog wrote:
Have you heard what financial experts are calling this? This isn't a time to call it in. Political move or not. It was the right thing to do. A 90 minute debate can wait until Monday. Like I posted before. Your party wanted McCain Tuesday. What happened on Wednesday?

Wanting to go on with a debate looks just as bad as going to Hollywood for a fundraiser when the economy is heading into the dumper. Average Americans WILL GET IT.

Sorry Jack, but I respectfully disagree. McCain can't do two things at once? Guess what, if he becomes President he will have to deal with all these at once: Economy, Iraq War, Heath Care, Education, Terrorism, Infrastructure, Taxes, Iran, N Korea, Russia, etc. etc.

Why didn't McCain deal with this financial crisis as it was happening, instead of taking the last 2 years off to run for President? It's too little too late. This thing didn't happen overnight. This is just obvious "posturing" for political and personal reasons. The Rep's are going to rush this bill through with or without McCain and Obama. What the American public needs is to figure out who can best run this country for the next 4 years. This mess isn't going away and there is no quick fix.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:10 am

matthewk wrote:
McCain has been in politics for years. Do you really think he's he's not ready to debate? Over the past couple of days both McCain and Obama have been giving their thoughts on the issue, so the debate is not needed right this minute, given what is happening.

It's not that he's not able or ready to debate....it's that he is facing more heat than Obama right now and delaying things can only help him.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:11 am

Bush 2003

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea8_1221606601

McCain 2005

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record. ... l=s109-190

Enjoy....

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:15 am

FatPitcher wrote:Two fully extended middle fingers from B. Clinton to Obama campaign:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... on-do.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200809 ... co/22073_1

Although I find his newfound respect for the Jewish holidays admirable, I'm sure Obama would rather have him "hustling up...the cracker vote" sooner rather than later.

I don't see how anyone can not love Bill Clinton the politician, regardless of what they thought of him as president. He's the P.T. Barnum of political gamesmanship.

Not a big deal and Clinton showed no anger towards Obama as you imply.
Although, after Obama didn't pick Hilary as VP, it wouldn't come as a surprise.

I think Bill should stay out of this right now. It just reinforces the reasons why we/Obama didn't want him in the White House. Bill...I love ya, but go play go with Jimmy Carter

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:21 am

pk500 wrote: Holy sh*t, that was bad. I know nothing about government and the current financial meltdown, and I could have sat there and given the same nebulous, talking point answers.

Sarah needs to bone up on those Cliff Notes fast. As JackB said, now we know why the campaign has shielded Palin from the media: Her grasp of specifics and policy details seem loose at best.

Her folksy charm is going to wear off really soon. Then what will we be left with, other than more fodder for Tina Fey?

Take care,
PK

And I really don't blame her at all. She is doing the best she can, given her limited knowledge about these issues. On the other hand, if Katie had asked her about where to find the best caribou burger......

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:26 am

Jared wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
Jared wrote: The CBS and NYT articles I posted before also support the same narrative, so it seems odd that multiple sources would be reporting Obama's involvement (including some before his presidential run), yet he had nothing to do with it. Maybe he worked on it before he was officially brought on as a co-sponsor? That's what it sounds like...
Never in the history of representative democracy has a legislator worked on a bill without getting his name on it.
But he was co-sponsor, wasn't he? Or are you talking about being actual sponsor? (The ins and outs of credit in legislative work do confuse me...)

I was being facetious.

Bills are drafted by the lawyers on the staff of the initial sponsors as well as staff lawyers from the legislature and sometimes executive branch lawyers.

Co-sponsors sometimes contribute amendments or change the draft of a bill (depending on when they join). Sometimes they're added because they help steer a bill through committee, other times because they represent a constituency which is needed to get the bill passed.

In Obama's case on this particular bill, his joining as co-sponsor was purely theatrical in the sense that neither he nor his staff made any substantive changes to the contents of the bill. He may have had off the record input into the bill, but if it was anything remotely important he would've insisted on getting his name on it for the political points alone. Plus legislative attorneys do not like working on a bill that doesn't have their boss' name on it. No credit for him means no credit for them.

Post by **Jared** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:33 am

Yeah...it seems that the internets are heralding s.190 as an example of McCain's excellent judgment wrt the current crisis. Does anyone have any information about how the changes in this bill would have forestalled the current crisis? And if it was a regulatory or deregulatory bill (it seems like the latter, since the summary seems to show the law as involving the creation of an independent agency outside of HUD, and mentions that it would exclude "Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements")?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:48 am

Seems to me if you add an extra element that it is more regulation.

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:49 am

RobVarak wrote: In Obama's case on this particular bill, his joining as co-sponsor was purely theatrical in the sense that neither he nor his staff made any substantive changes to the contents of the bill. He may have had off the record input into the bill, but if it was anything remotely important he would've insisted on getting his name on it for the political points alone. Plus legislative attorneys do not like working on a bill that doesn't have their boss' name on it. No credit for him means no credit for them.

Amongst many words you shall find the truth. I am not complaining, if it weren't for his laziness we wouldn't be able to enjoy Rob on XBL every day.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:55 am

MACTEPsporta wrote:
RobVarak wrote: In Obama's case on this particular bill, his joining as co-sponsor was purely theatrical in the sense that neither he nor his staff made any substantive changes to the contents of the bill. He may have had off the record input into the bill, but if it was anything remotely important he would've insisted on getting his name on it for the political points alone. Plus legislative attorneys do not like working on a bill that doesn't have their boss' name on it. No credit for him means no credit for them.
Amongst many words you shall find the truth. I am not complaining, if it weren't for his laziness we wouldn't be able to enjoy Rob on XBL every day.

OUCH!!!!

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:40 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:
RobVarak wrote: In Obama's case on this particular bill, his joining as co-sponsor was purely theatrical in the sense that neither he nor his staff made any substantive changes to the contents of the bill. He may have had off the record input into the bill, but if it was anything remotely important he would've insisted on getting his name on it for the political points alone. Plus legislative attorneys do not like working on a bill that doesn't have their boss' name on it. No credit for him means no credit for them.
Amongst many words you shall find the truth. I am not complaining, if it weren't for his laziness we wouldn't be able to enjoy Rob on XBL every day.

You think that carrying you up and down the ice/pitch isn't work?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 pm

FatPitcher wrote:Two fully extended middle fingers from B. Clinton to Obama campaign:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... on-do.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200809 ... co/22073_1

I don't think the Jewish holiday pause is a big deal at all. But if he were as committed to Obama as he claims to be he definitely wouldn't have backed McCain's decision like he did. And he certainly wouldn't have been so directy in blaming the Democrats for their Fannie/Freddie errors.

Maybe Obama can debate Clinton and Biden tomorrow night?

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:13 pm

RobVarak wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:Two fully extended middle fingers from B. Clinton to Obama campaign:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... on-do.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200809 ... co/22073_1

I don't think the Jewish holiday pause is a big deal at all. But if he were as committed to Obama as he claims to be he definitely wouldn't have backed McCain's decision like he did. And he certainly wouldn't have been so directy in blaming the Democrats for their Fannie/Freddie errors.

Maybe Obama can debate Clinton and Biden tomorrow night?

Bill is pissed off that Obama didn't come to his summit, while McCain did. Clever move by McCain to say he will suspend his fundraising and ask Obama to do the same, not many people will realize that McCain isn't losing much since he is on public financing, while Obama can really get hurt by not raising money.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:20 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:
Bill is pissed off that Obama didn't come to his summit, while McCain did.

Oh, I am sure that it's more than that.