OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[MACTEPsporta]

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.

I am sure it is too. That's just the most recent catalyst, in my opinion. I was listening to him speak today, and he was praising McCain a little too much, and when he mentioned Obama, he sounded as if he wanted to get past this part of the speech very fast.

[XXXIV]

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.

I am sure it is too. That's just the most recent catalyst, in my opinion. I was listening to him speak today, and he was praising McCain a little too much, and when he mentioned Obama, he sounded as if he wanted to get past this part of the speech very fast.

Hillary Clinton 2012

[Teal]

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.

[Jared]

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.

Does disagreeing with JackB1 on a variety of his posts count?

I'm not sure if I have in any recent posts. I do disagree w/some things in Obama's campaign...for example, I think Obama's Spanish language ad w/Limbaugh quotes was dishonest and unfair. And I do think that certain parts of No Child Left Behind get a bad rap. I think I would have agreed a bit with some moderate Republicans in the mid-70s, when Democrats were much more liberal and Republicans not nearly as conservative. But now? I can't think of anything major off the top of my head that I would agree with them on, primarily because the current party doesn't seem to be big on evidence-based decision making.

Your statement seems to assumes that being fair is equivalent to taking some middle of the line positions (as defined by the two American political parties). It's possible that the current Republican party positions are just wrong on a lot of issues, and that the best positions aren't currently in the middle of the American political aisle. Furthermore, that question wasn't challenging my arguments, or the logic in my arguments.

[Teal]

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.

Does disagreeing with JackB1 on a variety of his posts count?

I'm not sure if I have in any recent posts. I do disagree w/some things in Obama's campaign...for example, I think Obama's Spanish language ad w/Limbaugh quotes was dishonest and unfair. And I do think that certain parts of No Child Left Behind get a bad rap. I think I would have agreed a bit with some moderate Republicans in the mid-70s, when Democrats were much more liberal and Republicans not nearly as conservative. But now? I can't think of anything major off the top of my head that I would agree with them on, primarily because the current party doesn't seem to be big on evidence-based decision making.

Your statement seems to assumes that being fair is equivalent to taking some middle of the line positions (as defined by the two American political parties). It's possible that the current Republican party positions are just wrong on a lot of issues, and that the best positions aren't currently in the middle of the American political aisle. Furthermore, that question wasn't challenging my arguments, or the logic in my arguments.

No, disagreeing with JackB doesn't count!

Here's another question: By what definition do you come to the conclusion that the Republican party positions are the ones that are wrong?

What criteria do you use? Listen, I make no apologies for being a conservative. I don't try to hide that fact behind a veil of fair minded objectivity. It doesn't make me a republican; I have never voted straight ticket in my life, and I question the sanity of those who do. I don't give a damn, really, about democrats and republicans. There are good ones, and dumb-as-a-post ones in those parties-'dumb and dumber' both have "D's" and "R's" in them (well, there are twice as many D's... )

[webdanzer]

JackB1 is apparently the great uniter...

[Jared]

Here's another question: By what definition do you come to the conclusion that the Republican party positions are the ones that are wrong?

I totally agree that there are bad Democrats and good Republicans. That quote by that Florida Democratic representative you linked to earlier was total stupidity. As for the question, I try to see what the evidence is supporting or against each position. For example, the Republican party platform calls for abstinence-only education. In theory, it's great. In practice though (as has been shown in a bunch of studies) it doesn't work. So why push a policy that doesn't work?

Take Iraq and WMDs. The White House/Republican position was that they were there, and that action must be taken now. Except they really didn't examine the "evidence" critically, and it all ended up being a bunch of bull.

Those are just a couple of examples...but lately, the Republican party (in many aspects) hasn't been taking positions based on a careful, thoughtful examination of the evidence; instead pandering to the desires of important constituencies, regardless of whether they're right or not. And note that I'm not saying Democrats are great with that either...they've got their core constituencies that they've pandered to w/o thinking things through as well. But I do think they're better in that respect, especially Obama.

[XXXIV]

JackB1 is apparently the great uniter...

The glue of DSP.

[matthewk]

JackB1 is apparently the great uniter...

The glue of DSP.

Just don't tell him the glue used to be a horse.

[FatPitcher]

Take Iraq and WMDs. The White House/Republican position was that they were there, and that action must be taken now. Except they really didn't examine the "evidence" critically, and it all ended up being a bunch of bull.

The Democrats thought they were there, too. A few of them just didn't think anything should be done about it.

Or are we still blaming a partisan Republican CIA (heh) for going back in time to mislead Clinton et. al.?

Since we are cleaning up that little inconvenience, maybe we can do something about Barney Frank. Let's pretend he had nothing to do with the FM/FM meltdown, have him do the rounds on the Sunday shows talking about how Republicans failed and Democrats are going to clean up the mess. Oh wait, I see it's already been done. Carry on.

[FatPitcher]

Here's another question: By what definition do you come to the conclusion that the Republican party positions are the ones that are wrong?

I totally agree that there are bad Democrats and good Republicans. That quote by that Florida Democratic representative you linked to earlier was total stupidity. As for the question, I try to see what the evidence is supporting or against each position. For example, the Republican party platform calls for abstinence-only education. In theory, it's great. In practice though (as has been shown in a bunch of studies) it doesn't work. So why push a policy that doesn't work?

If you try really hard, you might find some Democratic programs that haven't been efficacious. You know, just maybe. Possibly even some relating to education.

[Brando70]

Take Iraq and WMDs. The White House/Republican position was that they were there, and that action must be taken now. Except they really didn't examine the "evidence" critically, and it all ended up being a bunch of bull.

The Democrats thought they were there, too. A few of them just didn't think anything should be done about it.

Or are we still blaming a partisan Republican CIA (heh) for going back in time to mislead Clinton et. al.?

A lot of people assumed Hussein had WMDs. But if you actually study the history of the lead-up to Iraq, it's obvious that there was a lot of dissent on the subject from the intelligence rank and file. The White House, however, reconfigured the flow of intelligence, so that raw, unvetted intelligence made its way to the cabinet level. If you do that, I guarantee that you can make a case for almost anything.

Tenet certainly was culpable in pushing the WMD angle. But the point is the whole mechanism was fixed to deliver the Hussein has WMD answer. The setup was like a Magic 8-Ball with one answer inside it. It was almost impossible for dissenting intelligence to make its way to the White House, thanks mostly to Rumsfeld (who used the Defense Intelligence Agency to circumvent the CIA when necessary) and Cheney. They then cooked up a bunch of fabricated crap to give to Colin Powell, knowing that he was more believable than the scowling, brill-cremed guys pushing the hardest for the war.

This isn't just armchair QBing, either. It was well known that Hussein likely didn't have an active nuclear program, because those are extremely difficult to conceal for any length of time. Likewise, his chemical weapons stores were believed to be depleted or at best have a few remnants from his pre-Gulf War days. The biggest question mark was the bioweapons program, which would be much easier to conceal. Again, though, the intelligence was not very conclusive, mostly rumors and hearsay from sources who had lots of reasons to back a US invasion.

Clinton certainly had it out for Hussein. However, he's not the one that cooked the books to mislead the American people into supporting an Iraq occupation that has no end in sight.

[Jared]

If you try really hard, you might find some Democratic programs that haven't been efficacious. You know, just maybe. Possibly even some relating to education.

To quote myself from the same post:

...but lately, the Republican party (in many aspects) hasn't been taking positions based on a careful, thoughtful examination of the evidence; instead pandering to the desires of important constituencies, regardless of whether they're right or not. And note that I'm not saying Democrats are great with that either...they've got their core constituencies that they've pandered to w/o thinking things through as well.

You could read before you snark.

And yes, many Democrats believed Hussein had lots o' WMDs, based on "intelligence" trumped up by the Republican White House, as Brando laid out. Does that absolve Cheney et al. for pushing crappy intelligence, or not critically examining the evidence for/against the state of WMDs in Iraq?

[JackB1]

JackB1 is apparently the great uniter...

The glue of DSP.

Just don't tell him the glue used to be a horse.

Can't I just be "The Natural or Synthetic Polymer of DSP"?

Actually, most glue these days are made from synthetics. Elmer's white glue for example is totally "horse free" Only those that contain "gelatin" come from all types of hooves (cow, horse, pig). So don't buy those!!

So if "disagreeing with JackB doesn't count", does agreeing with me count for anything? I want to count dammit!!!

[FatPitcher]

You could read before you snark.

And yes, many Democrats believed Hussein had lots o' WMDs, based on "intelligence" trumped up by the Republican White House, as Brando laid out. Does that absolve Cheney et al. for pushing crappy intelligence, or not critically examining the evidence for/against the state of WMDs in Iraq?

Even with the disclaimer, it was still absolutely snark-worthy.

Trumped up and fed-ex'd back to 1998, right? You know, the tiresome thing about this debate is that if you point out that Democrats are as full of fail on the issue as Republicans and shouldn't be prancing around as if it's a feather in their caps, you're accused of defending the Republicans. My position has always been that the Iraq War was illegal whether they had WMD or not.

[FatPitcher]

Actually, most glue these days are made from synthetics. Elmer's white glue for example is totally "horse free" Only those that contain "gelatin" come from all types of hooves (cow, horse, pig). So don't buy those!!

So if "disagreeing with JackB doesn't count", does agreeing with me count for anything? I want to count dammit!!!

I agree with you that Collective Soul makes good music.

I remember as a kid hearing that the difference between indigenous and Americans and whiteys hunting buffalo was that the former would put all parts of the buffalo to use, while whitey was wasteful. If the horses are dead anyway, why not turn their hooves into glue and tasty desserts?

[JackB1]

If the horses are dead anyway, why not turn their hooves into glue and tasty desserts?

Since you asked....

Unfortunately lots of horses get pushed to their demise faster because of the collective value of their "parts". Usually, the only parts of race horses that are buried are the head, hooves and heart. So "losing" horses who aren't bringing their owners enough cash may be pushed towards slaughter faster to make a buck on their "parts".

I have nothing at all against using the bodies of dead animals for useful purposes. But killing them just for that reason alone is wrong IMO.

****please pardon this temporary thread jack. now back to your regularly scheduled program"****

[Jackdog]

The glue of DSP.

Just don't tell him the glue used to be a horse.

Can't I just be "The Natural or Synthetic Polymer of DSP"?

[RobVarak]

Funny as hell and bi-partisan...

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/866 ... ed><br/><a

[Jackdog]

Jared I am glad to see someone other than Teal condemn Alcee Hastings racist remarks. For those of you that didn't click on the link. Here's a taste of this idiot's remarks.

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings on Wednesday warned two minority groups to beware of Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

Hastings, who is black and a Democrat, made the comment in Florida at a panel discussion hosted by the National Jewish Democratic Council. The group recently criticized Palin’s invitation to an anti-Iran rally held during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad’s visit to New York to speak before the U.N. General Assembly.

Hastings was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Hastings told the audience, which burst into laughter and applause, according to individuals present.

All bullshit aside. If this guy was a Republican, the s*** would have hit the fan.

[RobVarak]

In the spirit of Jared's independent statement that Democrats aren't always right (even though Republicans are pretty much always wrong)

...

Early reports are that John Boehner is being a numbskull on behalf of House Republicans in the negotiaions for the bailout. Somebody needs to club this guy over the head and move things along or he's going to provide another data point for Jared

[JRod]

In the spirit of Jared's independent statement that Democrats aren't always right (even though Republicans are pretty much always wrong)

...

Early reports are that John Boehner is being a numbskull on behalf of House Republicans in the negotiaions for the bailout. Somebody needs to club this guy over the head and move things along or he's going to provide another data point for Jared

Linky? I would like to read that article.

[RobVarak]

In the spirit of Jared's independent statement that Democrats aren't always right (even though Republicans are pretty much always wrong)

...

Early reports are that John Boehner is being a numbskull on behalf of House Republicans in the negotiaions for the bailout. Somebody needs to club this guy over the head and move things along or he's going to provide another data point for Jared

Linky? I would like to read that article.

It was a WaPo article that has since morphed into a much larger, and poorly written, monstrosity:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... ews&sub=AR

It's sausage making of the highest order.

The good news is that all parties appear to be operating under a common understanding of the time crunch...now. This was not the case this afternoon, when Boehner and Sen. Shelby were much more recalcitrant.

It seems that the GOP is still looking at alternatives to the Feds buying the bad securities outright, and they're all waving copies of this letter around:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... #more-3113

I don't know if anything short of an outright buy would provide the necessary "unclogging" of the credit markets. Experts, unsurprisingly, are divided on the topic.

If there's a better definition of "crisis" than a bunch of politicians who are lawyers running around trying to make decisions based letters and recommendations from groups of economists on an issue that nearly 100% of American's don't even understand in the middle of a Presidential election I don't know it.

[wco81]

They may not have the financial/economic expertise but the idea of approving a $700 billion outlay in a short time, with few strings (as originally proposed by Paulson) should give them some pause.

Also didn't help that calls are running 300 to 1 against the bailout, which is apparently part of the reason Bush made a national address.

Thing is, Paulson and Bernanke had reportedly said at previous points this year that the crisis was "contained." That's not to suggest they were or are being deceptive but it may raise questions that maybe they really don't know if this plan will ultimately work.

All those issues aside, Paulson has 3 more months, unless McCain commits to naming him Treasury secretary again if he should get elected. I believe him when he says this needs to be done now. But who knows, maybe he wants to get this done while he's in office, rather than leave this crisis unresolved as his legacy, and that's coloring his perceptions of the urgency.

[Jackdog]

NBC runs this McCain ad.

https://democracyforamerica.com/contribution_pages/69

Hooray NBC!!