Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRuss Feingold is popular enough with grassroots Democrats to have been boomed as a potential candidate for the party's 2008 nomination.
He has a national reputation for working across lines of party and ideology; in fact, Republican presidential candidate John McCain jokes that supporters of campaign finance reform think that "Feingold" is his last name.
Feingold comes from a battleground state that both the Democrats and Republicans say is critical to their strategies for accumulating the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the presidency.
Because of the bold stands he has taken as a defender of civil liberties, an advocate for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a champion of fair-trade economic policies, he could calm concerns among internet activists and labor stalwarts who have complained about presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama's murkiness on those issues.
And he might even help Obama build confidence and support among older Jewish voters -- who have evidenced some skepticism regarding the candidacy of the Illinois senator -- in the swing state of Florida.
Yet, as Feingold is the first to assert, "I'm not considered for vice president by anybody; it's not even a passing thought."
Why doesn't Feingold's name show up on the long short-list, or the even the short long-list, of Obama's potential running mates?
"I'm too hot to handle apparently," says Feingold, laughing at the very notion of an Obama-Feingold ticket.
Playing pundit for a moment, Feingold says, "I'm not the ideal mix for a guy like Obama for a huge variety of reasons… He's a Midwesterner, I'm a Midwesterner. He's a senator, I'm a senator."
But then the senator from Wisconsin gets to the point.
"Obama's looking for someone who would presumably balance the ticket, and I don't think most people would see me as balancing an Obama ticket," he explains.
Don't get Feingold wrong.
He is not one of those who believes it is wise to search for a boring centrist to "balance" Obama's star power and perceived liberalism. Feingold, who established his Progressive Patriots Fund with the express purpose of "promoting a progressive reform agenda" within the party and nationally, says the Democratic presidential candidate would be best-served by a running-mate with a bold values-driven commitment to challenging the caution and compromises of both major parties.
"I would love it," the Wisconsinite says of a vice-presidential selection that tips the ticket in a progressive direction. "But that's not necessarily what (Obama and his aides) are thinking. I think we would all have to agree that hasn't been their direction since the nomination was cinched."
Feingold's not frustrated for himself.
There's no evidence to suggest that he regrets his decision to seek the presidency this year -- or that the fiercely-independent senator would be happy as anyone's "No. 2." But he is uncomfortable watching Obama, who won the Democratic nod by taking bolder stands than Hillary Clinton on a number of foreign and domestic policy issues, now edge toward the ill-defined and uninspired center.
"It is always hard to see a candidate, even though I like him very much, move on certain issues in a direction I'm uncomfortable with," Feingold says. "I hope it's minimized."
Beyond hoping that Obama picks a progressive running-mate, Feingold says he is of the view that the Illinois senator should go for someone with stature rather than a base in a swing state.
Though he once suggested that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be politically muscular -- and thought he has also speculated about the prospect of former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as a strong vice presidential prospect -- Feingold's less interested in naming names at this point than in suggesting a standard that the nominee would be wise to apply.
"I still think that his choosing somebody who has a credibility on foreign policy and military issues -- to make sure people are comfortable with the Democrats on that, in light of the instability in the world – is probably the best approach," explains Feingold. "I don't think Obama does well by trying to pick somebody who is going to win a state for him. I can understand McCain doing that – with a (former Massachusetts Governor Mitt) Romney, a (Minnesota Governor Tim) Pawlenty or a (former Pennsylvania Governor Tom) Ridge. I think Obama has a different way of running, and that is a national wave of excitement based on his candidacy and a strong ticket. I wouldn't cherry pick a running mate just to try and carry a state. That's not what he needs."
Obama's lead is melting....melting....melting.....
and the media can't help him. The more people learn about Obama, the more it becomes obvious that the guy is not only an empty suit, but a huge fraud. He's the latest in a long line of left-wing losers. He's going to lose in a landslide.
Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2008 @ 10:38pm
something smells bad here.
oh, hi ponti.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 10:57pm
[sorry, mr. nichols.]
of course feingold's off the list.
he has a spine.
('cept for regulating wisconsin tree hackers, of course.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 10:59pm
I wonder when Obama win what some people will grip about let me guess. They will say sure he won but he wont be able to get anything done. Lets review he didnt stand a chance going up against the Clinton machine. He won 10 in a row PRIMARIES by 33 points average. Those are not democratic states even though they include states like wisconsin that Kerry lost, Virginia that has a very good chance of going blue he annihalted Hilary in that state that was suppose to be equally favorable to her. THen you have the Wright incident Oh that was going to destroy his candidacy its over. THen you have the bitter comments that Hilary and McCain pounded him over the head with and he lost PA but 20% of the republicans that voted for HIlary were operation chaos. They threw the kitchen sink at him went into debt 23 million dollars and STILL couldnt do it. They just sat by waiting for something disastrious to come out about him that was going to end his candidacy in between throwing everything they got him. A machine that took 35 years to build was toppled by a freshman senator. Then they got desperate using polls with their bullet points showing why they would be the better candidate even though they ran a camapign bent on DESTROYING the other guy. WHen he is up in the polls by 8 or more OH its too early we cant go by these polls. The constantly had negative stories abou thim he cant win this group or that group while totally ignoring the other guy they browbeat and beat until they made this a close race and then now that its a close race they say see we told you so he cant win he will lose by a landslide.
SO when he wins I can tell you what their talking points will be he wont get anythign done he will be a one term president yada yada you get the drift.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 08/18/2008 @ 11:06pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2008 @ 10:38pm
PONTI, you certainly are brave.
To be willing to see that post thrown back in your face when Obama's poll numbers go up and you have to explain why "the melting" has stopped with Obama...
and begun with you!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:07pm
BTW, as noted on another thread, doesn't it show McCain's "leadership" that he has to wait for Obama to pick HIS Veep (and see how to react) before "Maverick" John will pick his?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:08pm
Feingold, no, see what happened to Lie berman!
But we all know Lie berman, Lie berman is not our friend, Feingold is no Lie berman...
Thank the gods.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2008 @ 12:09am
You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.
joe lieberman, 2003
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 12:32am
The White House projected this week that next year's deficit will be $482 billion, a record amount.
<<<<<>>>>>
Has proposed making most expiring cuts permanent as part of a broader overhaul of tax policy. McCain's plan would cut revenue by $600 billion over 10 years, the Tax Policy Center estimates, but McCain says making the tax cuts permanent would stimulate the economy.
<<<<<>>>>>
Sometime next summer, the national debt will cross a mind-numbing threshold, topping $10 trillion – about $32,500 for every man, woman and child in the country. Just paying the interest on the debt this year will cost taxpayers $232 billion, money not available for education, defense, health care or other national priorities. Far from reversing the trend, the government continues to pile up debt by spending more than it takes in
<<<<<>>>>>
Has proposed making most expiring cuts permanent as part of a broader overhaul of tax policy. McCain's plan would cut revenue by $600 billion over 10 years, the Tax Policy Center estimates, but McCain says making the tax cuts permanent would stimulate the economy.
<<<<<>>>>>
The White House projected this week that next year's deficit will be $482 billion, a record amount.
<<<<<>>>>>
McCain voted against the Bush-backed $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001. Two years later, he voted against a second round of Bush tax cuts – this time worth $350 billion – on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. As a candidate, however, McCain has said he would make the tax cuts permanent.
<<<<<>>>>>
The White House projected this week that next year's deficit will be $482 billion, a record amount.
<<<<<>>>>>
Sometime next summer, the national debt will cross a mind-numbing threshold, topping $10 trillion – about $32,500 for every man, woman and child in the country.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 12:39am
voodoonomics.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 12:40am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ&fmt=18
zero, i think you'll appreciate that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 02:02am
I see JOMAMMA is still having trouble discerning far left from moderate social conservatives like Obama. Perhaps you should come here to West Bengal - where they have the longest democratically elected communist government in the world at 32 years - and see what the leftism you fear really looks like.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/19/2008 @ 02:14am
In the MSM as well, all the jabber is about Obama's VP choice ... barely a word about McC's. How come?
Why is the campaign mainly about Obama? What's wrong with McC?
Why isn't McC under the microscope?
Silly Q.
Wait till the debates. The suspense is killing, how will the media turn the obvious debates rout into a close race?
Pick on Obama, that's how.
Obama, who might return the FCC to its rightful place, more in the people's interests..
Posted by sloper at 08/19/2008 @ 02:35am
hi srj
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 02:38am
Posted by srjenkins at 08/19/2008 @ 02:14am
how's the food?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 02:38am
Under the "Enron loophole" pushed through by Gramm in 2000, energy futures were allowed to escape all federal and state regulation.
Gramm embedded that loophole in a surprise 262-page rider, drafted at the behest of Wall Street and Enron, in an 11,000-page appropriations bill on a Friday evening two days after the Supreme Court handed down its Bush v. Gore ruling and as Congress was rushing home for Christmas.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 02:43am
russ is a great guy, possibly the most effective progressive senator we have. he made a choice to not run and will continue to do great work in the senate.
i understand nichols' respect for russ and share it.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/19/2008 @ 06:35am
Posted by srjenkins at 08/19/2008 @ 02:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
lol - translate any JOMAMMA ratings one or two spots rightward. he mistakes his solid rightwing viewpoint for an accurate definition of others' bent. right is center, center is left and left is commernist...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/19/2008 @ 06:41am
Posted by srjenkins at 08/19/2008 @ 02:14am
"Perhaps you should come here to West Bengal - where they have the longest democratically elected communist government in the world at 32 years - and see what the leftism you fear really looks like."
We don't have to go to West Bengal to see what the world's longest 'democratically elected' communist government looks like. All we need do is look 90 miles across the Florida Straits where Fidel Castro is regularly 'reelected' with 100 percent of the vote (while we catch all of his refugees swimming through shark-infested waters from your socialist paradise). Castro has Universal Health Care, you know. Plus, he regularly gets 're-elected', albeit in your leftist-style elections, conducted without the right to a private vote (card check, anyone? Pelosi and Reed promise it to you, too).
No, SR, the world has seen what your socialist paradise looks like, and the world has said no thanks. It's only leftist retards like you that for some reason keep pushing it.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 07:16am
Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2008 @ 10:38pm
Well, you would know from loser.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:30am
India, Sweden.
All Cuba really.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:41am
National Liberation Front of Tripura The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) is a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India. The NLFT were declared a terrorist organization under the Indian Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2002. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura.[39] They are accused of forcing indigenous tribes to give up Hinduism and become Christian in areas under their control.[39] In 2000 the Indian government of Tripura announced that it had hard evidence that the Baptist Church of Tripura was backing the NLFT.[39] Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested and found to be in possession of a large quantity of explosives.[39] Halam confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for the past two years.[39] The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism classified the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world in 2003.[40]
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:55am
oops, wrong thread.
oh well, it should give ponti one more thing to be afraid of, should he ever visit the Cuban state of West Bengal in India.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:57am
Nagaland Rebels The Nagaland Rebels is a coalition of rebel groups operating in Nagaland, North-East India. The largest of these is the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), which is fighting for the establishment of a "Nagaland for Christ".[43][44] The NSCN-IM have carried out numerous acts of terrorism against the Indian Army, other ethnic groups, and opponents within their own ethnic group.[43] The insurgency has been waged since the 1947 Indian declaration of independence, and has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths
Guardians of the Cedars The Guardians of the Cedars is the paramilitary wing of the banned Lebanese Renewal Party, and one of several Christian militias active in the Lebanese Civil War.[47] From 1973 their slogans have included "No Palestinian will remain on Lebanese soil" and "A good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian".[48] According to Judith Tucker, "the Guardians of the Cedars played an important role in terrorist strategy throughout the wars in Lebanon... They are best known today for the numberous attacks and cold-blooded murders of Palestinian civilians in the Sidon region."[48] In an interview carried out by the Jerusalem Post, leader Abu Arz said that Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from Lebanon "We shall drive them to the borders of 'brotherly' Syria and tell them to keep walking. Anyone who looks back, stops or returns will be shot on the spot. When I suggest that such harsh procedures might put the Christian world against them, he simply says: 'We are the Christian world.'"[49]
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:59am
'Q. The courts. Let me ask it this way. Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?
A: I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't hink that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.' -- Barack Obama/Rick Warren Interview transcript
'...Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama's Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified "white" candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?' -- Christopher Hitchens -- 18 January 2008
'I've been governor for 18 months. My experience before that was as a district attorney. I loved being a district attorney…but I don't think that's what Barack Obama's looking for in a vice president. I've been governor for 18 months. It's been a great experience. But it's just 18 months…Obama has to think about experience…' -- Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter -- 4 August, 2008.
'In a wide-ranging interview with Charlie Rose, [Bill] Clinton suggested Obama was ... inexperienced...' -- Ari Melber -- The Nation -- 15 December, 2007
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/19/2008 @ 09:52am
the industrial world understands, as does my high school children, that cutting taxes increases the amount of money to the consumers and it flows into the economy, generating more economic growth..which increases revenues to the treasury..
Burped by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 09:29am
so why are debt and the deficit at record levels?
all recent currency crises (asia, mexico, brazil....) have been proceeded by huge current account deficits.
the u.s. currently has a current account deficit of $800,000,000,000, 7% of gdp.
think of me as a heart surgeon who works for free.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 09:55am
" "
- honest liberal
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:01am
John do you sell said Chinese bicycles? Maybe Fidel would be interested in a bulk purchase through you.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 10:18am
Miscellaneous comments:
To pontificus:
You said about Obama "He's the latest in a long line of left-wing losers. He's going to lose in a landslide."
Well, hopefully so. The only time in recent times Democrats won the White House is when Slick Willie engaged in the charade of being a centrist. He earned the "Slick" nickname for a reason and the country suffered for it. Otherwise, with McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Algore and Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way) the Dems went down to defeat. Mr. Peanut, the sanctimonious anti-Semite and incompetent Jimmy Carter, would probably have been defeated also had it not been for the aftereffects of Watergate.
To frosty zoom:
You said "You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy. joe lieberman, 2003"
What is your point? What is wrong with Lieberman policy? I hope we have Lieberman policy with regard to Iran.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 10:32am
Ponti-I agree with your view that it's best to ignore success in favor of only looking at failure so that way we won't have any political or economic system nor will we find the cure for any disease or problems because failure can be found in any system and with any cure for any disease or problem..This election will be close.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 10:35am
SJ, how exactly did the country "suffer" under the rule of Blowjob?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 10:39am
What is your point? What is wrong with Lieberman policy? I hope we have Lieberman policy with regard to Iran.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 10:32am
Grr, kill kill, borrow, kill, grrr
that policy?
Or should we have Reagans policy?
Trade with Iran secretly, then pay another tyrant while that tyrant uses chemical weapons on the Iranians, then blame the Iranians for the chemical attack, meanwhile fund, then underfund the Mujahadeen Islamic Terrorist group.
Just checking. I know how ya'll worship the orignal The One, Ronnie Reagan, union member, namer of names, builder of debt, supporter of "Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan and Nicaruagua
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 10:45am
SJ, how exactly did the country "suffer" under the rule of Blowjob?----Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 10:39am
I'll be willing to bet SJCHER cites Clinton's PERSONAL failings and "he didn't get bin Laden when he could".
(Although that last one gets a little tricky given Dubya has had over 6 years and not done it either!)
After all, surpluses....booming economy....no 4100+ dead GIs.....
certainly not going to make his list of "Clinton failures", is it?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 10:47am
Hello crabwalk and Maskdelta,
Maskdelta says: "I'll be willing to bet SJCHER cites Clinton's PERSONAL failings and "he didn't get bin Laden when he could". "
You lose your bet, Maskdelta!
How about when Loral Space sold missile technology to the Communist Chinese. The missile technology that was otherwise prohibited for a company to sell to a foreign entity (let alone communists!). A presidential waiver of the rule made the sale possible. The missile technology that enables communist China to have missles now that can reach the U.S. with nuclear warheads, where they couldn't before?
By the way, the CEO of Loral is Bernard Schwartz, a backer financially of Bill Clinton and Democrats?
Slick Willie let a friend sell missile technology (which Loral I am sure made money on) to communists that makes it possible for communist nuclear missles to reach the west coast.
Is that a pretty good place to start?
P.S. Don't bother telling me Bernard Schwartz is not a backer of Slick Willie. I know that from non-political means - inter-company publicity to Loral employees about their CEO.
P.P.S. On other matters how about the "wall" that Jamie Georlick put in place during the Clinton administration that made it more difficult for law enforcement entities to share information about terror incidents/suspects?
P.P.P.S. How about Clinton treating terror as a criminal matter rather than as a war against us?
P.P.P.P.S. How about when Clinton did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda?
P.P.P.P.P.S How about the economic downturn that started at the end of the Clinton administration.
P.P.P.P.P.P.S How about the Clintons bringing dishonor to the White House by hanging pornographic ornaments on the White House Christmas trees?
Enough examples for you?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 11:08am
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 10:45am
"Or should we have Reagans policy?"
You've got a problem with winning the Cold War and restoring the country's economy after the Jimmy Carter disaster? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You do.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 11:08am
Sorry, we need Feingold.
Tell McCain he can have Tommy Thompson back though. We prefer his wife anyway She stayed home where her life is. Gotta respect that.
Breaks over, darn it.
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 11:11am
Ponti-Reagan had nothing to do with the ending of the cold war and his economic policies failed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:12am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 11:08am
That's just a start. How about the Democratic mantra during the 96 campaign that 'character doesn't matter'? The damage to our culture from that crew will still be in the process of tabulation decades from now.
Then we have the last 8 years of general insanity of the left as they try to impeach Bush for imaginary crimes, all for the subliminal purpose of justifying retroactively their support for Clinton's perjury and bald-faced lies to the country.
And let's not forget how the Clintons' cronies in Hollywood today are suppressing the release of 'The Path to 9/11" on DVD, all for the purpose of covering up their fecklessness and ineptitude in protecting this country from Bin Laden. This bunch of grifters has corrupted nearly everything it has touched.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:12am
"Ponti-Reagan had nothing to do with the ending of the cold war and his economic policies failed."
Yes, IM, I know. It's all just a coincidence that the Soviet Empire collapsed, interest rates were cut by70 percent, inflation cut by 70 percent, unemployment cut by 60 percent, etc. during Reagan/Bush period. All just a terribly inconvenient coincidence, which I'm sure you will go to great lengths to rationalize. Snore.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 11:19am
ponti-Your kid Bush failed to protect us from bin Laden, as did Clinton.Your partisan people are,by far,the worlds most gullible and naive people.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:19am
Obama currently has an electoral landslide and an 8-point popular lead. Pay attention to the Harris polls becuase they tend to be right. It's harrisinteractive.com.
Posted by swanny58 at 08/19/2008 @ 11:21am
Ponti-You are correct.It was just a coincidence that Reagan happened to be POTUS when the USSR fell.A rise in crappy paying jobs at Burger King isn't impressive.Sorry.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:22am
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:22am
Hey IM, anybody who was alive during the Carter years knows what a disaster he was, and how Reagan basically saved this country from that incompetent man's disastrous policies. The Prime Rate was 14 percent when that loser left office, try buying a house with a 12 percent mortgage, only those of us who were alive during those times have a crystal clear recollection of what damage the kind of policies that you people extol every day can and will do to this country if your latter day Carter, Obama, gets elected. Let's hope we never find out.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 11:27am
Posted by swanny58 at 08/19/2008 @ 11:21am
Gee, that's funny, every other poll shows Obama with about a 275 - 250 lead in EV's and a low single digit lead. Kerry had a much larger lead at this point and Dukakis was even bigger. Once people put aside the MSM propaganda and actually think about voting for a nothing like Obama, this thing will turn into a rout.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 11:31am
Ponti-Reagan did not save the country.Get a grip on reality.Reagan was an average POTUS,at best.You have no evidence that Obama will be a new Carter and Bush is no better than Carter so we know that both parties and sides can fail miserably.What policies do I extol that have been proven failures?
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:36am
Ponti-Rasmussen polls,the ones proven to be the most accurate when it comes to elections,has Obama leading.Of course,polls mean nothing right now.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:38am
Ponti-Only the politically ignorant believe that this election will be a landslide for either.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:39am
Okay, just one more word til this evening.
MTV put the cold war on hold.....for awhile.
The Russians demanded the capitalist lifestyle and Gorbachev told them to have at it with Reagan's blessing. Now Putin et al are putting that genie back in the bottle and GWB, the man whose gaze was fixed on Putin's soulful eyes, never saw the iron fist a comin'. Course he was busy celebrating victory in Iraq with John McCain.
"We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.
-John McCain May 22 2003 in a speech about Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 11:46am
Ponti-Only the politically ignorant believe that this election will be a landslide for either.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:39am
The most accurate comment so far. The country is still, generally, evenly split politically. It could go either way barring some stupid gaffe by one side or the other.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 11:46am
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:36am
"Reagan was an average POTUS,at best."
Well, I guess you and I just have different criteria. I personally find it important that a President, through his policies, should slash unemployment, taxes, inflation, and interest rates, while at the same time presiding over a hugely expanding economy, keeping the country safe, and defeating evil empires abroad. Whereas you, clearly, have a preference for empty rhetoric, santimonious moralizing, thug regimes taking our embassies hostage, etc., all in service to a hopelessly naive and deluded worldview which favors socialism over what actually works in practice. So let's just chalk it up to different priorities, okay?
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 11:48am
Ponti-I agree that that would make one a good POTUS,but little of that applies to Reagan.Get out of your partisan fantasy world.Where did you get the idea that I prefer empty rhetoric,hostage taking,and socialism?Please,be specific.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:51am
benchrest-This will come down to the wire with a possible photo finish,barring,as you said,a major boo boo from one of them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:01pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 11:51am
"Where did you get the idea that I prefer empty rhetoric,hostage taking,and socialism?Please,be specific."
Well, IM, for example, you support Obama, whose foreign policy rhetoric is completely empty, it being nothing more than a reprise of Jimmy Carter's 'morality-based', 'world community' idea of policing the world. Carter also had this deluded view that the 'world community' would lift a finger to stop things like Russia's invasion of Georgia or Afghanistan, or Angola, or whatever. And it was completely wrong. The 'world community' cannot do dick about anything, even if they had the will, which they don't. So that's a complete FUBAR right there, and you don't have a clue about it, you being all mesmerized about how good it sounds, not realizing it's the same crap that Carter sold this country 30 years ago.
And that's just with regard to foreign policy.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 12:03pm
Ponti-Where did you get the idea that I support Obama?The fact that you claim that his foreign policy is empty does not mean that it is.You are an overly partisan person and your type lives in a fantasy world so I prefer to go by less partisan views such as the ones I have.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:07pm
"Ponti-Where did you get the idea that I support Obama?"
So you're voting for McCain? There's really only two choices, except for none of the above, in which case your views don't count for anything to anyone but yourself.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 12:11pm
Ponti-My family and friends believe that my views count and I don't care what you think.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:14pm
Ponti-It's understandable that you would prefer to have discussions with others that live in your partisan fantasy world,but it's good for everyone to get views from less partisan and more realistic people.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:14pm
Well, that's great for you, IM, I'm so happy for you. Just let me know when you figure out how the thugs and murderers that run regimes around the world are going to be kept in line without the credible threat of an ass-kicking, okay?
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 12:25pm
Ponti-You guys don't care about thugs and dictators unless their country has oil and then you invite terrorists to come into the place you attacked and encourage them to kill Iraqis and then claim that you love freedom for all.Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 11:08am
So, Bush still pushing more trade with China doesn't bother you? Or Bush ignoring Darfur doesn't bother you? Or the economy going into the tank at the end of the Bush Administration doesn't bother you?
But they did under Clinton?
Ah-ha.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:38pm
PONTI,
You attack Carter for naively thinking the world community would stop Russia from attacking some country...
what has BUSH done about it?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:40pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:29pm Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:38pm
Real Conservatives respect and admire intelligence. Pity they are a dying breed.
I know a lot of wingnuts suffer from phronemophobia, but is there a term for those who also fear those who can think?
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 12:54pm
pogge-I was raised by real conservatives and,you are correct,they are a dying breed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 12:54pm
They get their soundbites and Limbaugh talking points with the depth of a snail's bathtub and stick with them.
Even logic or the obviousness of how they're being USED for political purposes (a la SJCHER thinking the GOP ACTUALLY wants to overturn Roe) can't get in the way.
They'll even contradict themselves, as with PONTI...attacking Carter for being "weak against Russian aggression"...but then ignoring the fact that Bush is doing virtually the same thing over Georgia that Carter did over Afghanistan...less even, since Carter boycotted the Soviet Olympics.
If it doesn't fit into a four paragraph editorial from "The Weekly Standard"...a Hannity "first hour monologue"...or what Pat Robertson said in his "analysis of today's news"....it isn't considered.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 1:00pm
I know a lot of wingnuts suffer from phronemophobia, but is there a term for those who also fear those who can think?
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 12:54pm
Politicians.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 1:01pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 12:40pm
"what has BUSH done about it?"
Nothing, militarily. Because we have no military options. But that's not the point, MASK. Obama/Carter rule out those options as a matter of policy, Bush does not. Do you see the difference? Refusing to rule out the use of force does not mean you use it in every instance, or is that too 'nuanced' for you?
At this point, I would imagine Bush is doing the only thing open to him: strengthening the NATO alliance by preparing for the admission of Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic States, and casting of the ballistic missile shield (hysterically opposed with a quasi-religious fervor by your Party heroes) such that its umbrella covers our allies in Eastern Europe. Little else to do.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 1:16pm
Well, that's great for you, IM, I'm so happy for you. Just let me know when you figure out how the thugs and murderers that run regimes around the world are going to be kept in line without the credible threat of an ass-kicking, okay?
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 12:25pm
Too funny today, Ponti. Tell me, how is Putin doing in Georgia today? Sudanese Janjiweed? Mugabe'?
Yep, these thugs are quaking in their collective boots with just the mere thought that you might borrow some more money from china and send in someone elses kids to kick their ass.
SJ, still waiting to hear how we all "suffered" under Clinton. Using PontiFlogic criteria, it looks like Clinton did as well as Reagan.
Reagan 1st term: Inflation: -6.3%, Unemployment- +1.4%, Longterm interest- -.07, GDP shortfall- +.7
Clinton second term: Infl--1.4%, unemployment; -.06 LTI;--1.5%, GDP shortfall; -1.0
Reagan 2nd, Inflation 0, unemployment; -.8, LTI, -2.1, GDP, -.2
Clinton 1st: Infl; -.4%, Unemp; -1.4, LTI;-.8, GDP; -2.5.
Clinton also saw deficits gowing away on paper. Keep in mind that Carter inherited Nixons mess too. It is not a vacuum.
Bush's brother accepted hookers from the Chinese guvt. Under Bush watch nook-yu-lar triggers were sent to China.
Under Bush Sudan erupted into genocide, China cracked down on Tibetans, continued to jail tens of thousands of dissidents and religious people that refuse to register with the Commie guvt, Bush's policies increased trade deficits with the largest communist nation on Earth, Russia invaded Georgia, Bin Laden attacked the US and continues to kill US citizens, Bush increased our debt owed to China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and others.
so, I would say Clinton did as well as Reagan, far better than Chimpy McFlightsuit
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 1:19pm
Ponti-You first word was the correct answer to the question of what has Bush done.Nothing, other than watch the Olympics..Get out of your partisan fantasy world.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 1:19pm
As I see the comments of Ponti and SJ, the American people had little to do with the changes wrought in the 1980's, it was mostly due to government policy.
Fascinating.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 1:23pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 09:29am
Again Jom. We have been through this. You have no proof. The world DOESN'T understand that because they have never actually seen it. Bush cut taxes to corporations AND to the rich. Which was SUPPOSED to bring us up. We are stagnant. Our economy is not growing and we are in debt. War is SUPPOSED to be one of the biggest economic boosters and yet WITH the tax cuts you want we still are not growing.
Cite examples to show that that works. THEN you can talk about it being rudimentary knowledge. The reason the kids in your class "know" it works is because that's what they have been TOLD by you. But no one seems to be able to cite examples of it working. The biggest growth periods in this country are from when the government was spending the most tax money.
I can cite examples of heavily taxed but prosperous economies. Now show me the examples of economies that have 0% corporate tax and the lowest taxes on the actual people that are prosperous.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 1:19pm
"Ponti-You first word was the correct answer to the question of what has Bush done.Nothing, other than watch the Olympics..Get out of your partisan fantasy world."
Really, IM. Sometimes you exhibit the mentality and reasoning power of a 5 year old.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 1:34pm
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 1:19pm
CRABBIE, you are a blithering moron, but sometimes your statements are so blatantly moronic that I can't resist answering them. Tell me, what military options would you have us explore in Georgia? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Iran? And then, tell me again how refusing to rule out the use of force in general means that we must use force in each of these situations specifically?
If you liberals are the country's 'intellectual elite', as you so often state that you are, we need a new intellectual elite.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 1:40pm
Nothing, militarily. Because we have no military options. But that's not the point, MASK. Obama/Carter rule out those options as a matter of policy, Bush does not. Do you see the difference?----Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 1:16pm
No. You bemoan Obama and Carter on Russia as ruling out military options...
then tell us Bush has no military options.
And where has Obama ruled out military options for OTHER things, PONTI? Seems the last time you guys were going after him for being TOO hawkish and "wanting to invade Pakistan!"
Need to get your stories straight...is he a wimp...or "too reckless"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 1:45pm
Ponti-In what way do I exhibit 5 year old thinking?Please,be specific and,please,remember that it is you, and not me, who calls people names and posts things that are quite naive and juvenile..
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 1:48pm
Really, IM. Sometimes you exhibit the mentality and reasoning power of a 5 year old.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 1:34pm
Tell us again how Bush has NEVER lost a court case!! Or how EVERYONE KNEW Saddam had wmd's, till he moved them to Syria. Or maybe you would like to wax eloquent about the democrartic witch hunt that was composed of all republican appointees.
giggle, snort,
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 1:51pm
Ponti-The last time you made a general statement about me I asked you to be specific and you were unable to come up with anything and you won't now.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2008 @ 1:53pm
If you liberals are the country's 'intellectual elite', as you so often state that you are, we need a new intellectual elite.
Posted by pontificus at 08/19/2008 @ 1:40pm
this is a title you and yours have pushed on others, I have never claimed to be an "intellectual elite". Unlike you, I do not power my car with Hubris.
I compare those stats, and I get an almost even result. How do you compare those stats?
BTW, I am wondering how ya'll would deal with the multitude of Christo/socialist, Christo/Fascist terrorist groups in the world?
See: Christian terrorism at WIKI for a brief outline of some of these groups, including many that operate in the US, killing US citizens and hampering economic well being.
ta For now...
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 1:58pm
ALso, SJCHERMAK, could you supply evidence that Jimmy Carter is "an anti-semite"?
Or, in your mind is being luke warm on Israel the same as being an anti-semite?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 1:28pm
Hear, hear.
If we are better off under Bush than Clinton no one told us. I have a good job, good medical and am in fair to middling financial shape so I suppose the arguement could be made that we are AS well off as we were-except for our home which is worth less than it was ten years ago-but we weren't planning on selling.
However, our hardworking kids are struggling, our retired neighbors who worked hard all their lives are struggling, the hardworking-but-not-so-sharp folks who have crappy jobs that don't cover their transportation costs, well, God knows what they will do for heat this winter.
Of course most of these folks will vote for McCain just as they voted for Bush because they think Senator Obama doesn't understand their problems. He's an elitist you see, unlike Bush the trust fund baby or McCain the gazillionaire(sigh). They just don't trust those airy fairy smart people.
What is it they say about God helping those who help themselves? Maybe there is some truth to that because these folks consistently vote against their own best interests.
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 2:05pm
According to Bill Bennett, during the 80's...
Teen-suicide rates, up; births to unmarried teen-agers, way up; child poverty, up; marriage rates, down; single-parent families (as a percentage of families with children), up; illegitimate births, up; percentage of children living with both biological parents, down.
And he has also noted that during the 1990s, including the Clinton years, abortion rates declined, violent crime declined significantly, and teen sexual activity declined.
I do beleive that Reagan ran on the "Family Values " platform.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 2:05pm
Pogge, remember, in the neo-con world a man that was raised by a single parent, worked his way up through the system via hard work and intellect...is an "eltist". Clinton, Obama.
Men that were born the children of Admirals, heads of the CIA, or former presidents, attended private schools and graduated at the bottom of their class, divorced their first wife for a prettier/richer one...are salt of the Earth Family Values types that we all want to go drinkin wit! Not Elitists at ALL!. Bush, McCain.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 2:13pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 2:05pm
Those people like to vote for the "normal guy", the "average joe" who you can drink a beer with. Problem is Bush may drink beer but I gurantee you it isn't Bud light. Bush has never been normal. He is the son of a President. McCain has never been normal. He was the son of an admiral and then married wealthy. Obama grew up not well off but he is no longer normal because HE is also wealthy now. These people don't understand the poor. None of them are average joes. None of them will drink a beer with you, unless it's for a photo op.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 2:03pm
'It now turns out that Jimmy Carter--who is accusing the Jews of buying the silence of the media and politicians regarding criticism of Israel--has been bought and paid for by Arab money. In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The canard is that Jews own and control the media,
... the shoe is precisely on the other foot. Recent disclosures prove that it is Carter who has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money.
Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who, in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no matter how despotic the regime). And these are only the confirmed, public donations.
... Another journalist, Rachel Ehrenfeld, in a thorough and devastating article on "Carter's Arab Financiers," meticulously catalogues Carter's ties to Arab moneymen, from a Saudi bailout of his peanut farm in 1976, to funding for Carter's presidential library, to continued support for all manner of Carter's post-presidential activities. For instance, it was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), founded in Pakistan and fronted by a Saudi billionaire, Gaith Pharaon, that helped Carter start up his beloved Carter Center. According to Ehrenfeld:
"BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. [Agha Hasan] Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and ‘the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."' -- Alan Dershowitz -- http:// adershowitz.gather. com/anti-semitism
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/19/2008 @ 2:31pm
HL, Pro-Arab = Anti-Semite?
that makes the Bush clan Anti-Semite?
Do a little research into the BCCI connections with the Bush's. I recommend John Kerrys Senate investigations into this crime spree known as a "bank".
----
Ponti, you have referred to me as "intellectual elite", "over educated elite", a "financial planner of some sort".
FYI, I don't even have an associates degree. No bachelors, no Masters, no Phd.
how's dem apples?
Moron.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 2:43pm
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
Jom. I recommend that website. Look at the statistic for taxes. Even the Chinese tax rate on corporations is 25%. The individual tax rate is 4-45%. Yet they are one of the strongest up and coming economies. There are no economic powerhouses on that list that have below a 20% tax bracket for corporations. All of them also have an Income tax rate higher that spans from 10-45% depending on amount of income.
What you guys preach about lowering tax rates doesn't work in practice. Every country that has a solid economy has an income tax comparable to Americas. EVEN China, the country that you guys use as the model for a strong economy has a higher end income tax than we do and a comparable corporate earnings tax AND on TOP of all of that they have a tax on transactions. So they are taxing people more than most places yet they have a stronger economy.
I would like to say that lowering the Income tax and using only a sales tax would improve the economy but it hasn't been shown to work in practice. In fact just the opposite has been shown to be true.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:17pm
Hello Maskdelta,
You said above "......Or Bush ignoring Darfur doesn't bother you?....."
The Bush administration has not ignored Darfur. The State Department has attempted to push the government in the Sudan to stop the genocide.
The U.N., as always, has been useless.
If we (the U.S.) and the U.K. and a few others intervened militarily, the Left would go beserk with anger at President Bush.
So your statement is wrong.
I said that Clinton did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda. How do I know this. I saw Slick Willie admit to it!
On August 3, 2008 I was watching an ABC news Sunday news program, and one of the items was a comment by Slick Willie on how sometime next year he would comment on the recent primaries between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
So the media interviewed Slick Willie. As always, it was in a venue that made him look good, he was on an AIDS mission to Africa.
Already, my blood pressure was up around 500/300, because this photo op makes it look like Slick Willie is doing great things, while the media never reports the Bush administration increased funding to help Africa on AIDS way beyond what it was in the Clinton years. The people in Africa view George W. Bush much more favorably than people here.
To her credit, the ABC report asked Slick - "What about Rwanda?"
In about as disgusting a spectacle as you could see, Slick said he was sorry about that and that is why he is on his mission now.
THE MAN ADMITTED IT. Aug 3 2008.
Crabwalk can look this up - I have given you the date and the program.
I know that was the date. A few hours later I stood across what had been the World Trade Center. I will never forget that date, disgust at Slick Willie early in the morning, total misery upon me about noontime.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 3:20pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:17pm
could we not also compare economic growth in the 50's and 60's to the 80's and 90's? In the former, tax rates were as high as 70- even 90%, but we saw tremendous growth of GDP and the middle class.
Happy medium, as in most things.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 3:22pm
Corporations and individuals in China pay higher taxes than we do yet their economy is better than ours. The rich their pay higher taxes than our rich. Corporations their on average pay more than corporations here. So how do you justify your beliefs if they aren't backed up by the facts?
The tested and proven facts state that the economies with a tax bracket of 20-35% corporate tax and 10-35% personal income tax are the strongest economies in the world. While the economies with the model you want, 0-10% income tax, 0-10% corporate tax and a high transaction or sales tax are consistently the weakest economies in the world.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:28pm
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 3:22pm
Yet those who preach lowering corporate taxes and income taxes never bother to look at the facts. They never bother to see what HAS and DOES work. Instead they preach a system that has numerous examples of failure.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 3:31pm
'But with the publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, his ignorant rant against Israel, many in the American Jewish community believe that Carter is not just a loser but an anti-Semite. I disagree.
Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding.
...No, Carter is not anti-Semitic so much as a man whose lack of judgment and shallowness render him absolutely incapable of telling right from wrong. Carter's obscene comparison of Israel with apartheid South Africa ignores the fact that Israel is the first country to airlift tens of thousands of black Africans to become free and full citizens in its borders, a phenomenon that has no precedent in the history of the world. But by saying that the Palestinians are being subjected to apartheid Carter has grossly maligned not Jews, but black South Africans. Whereas black South Africans inspired the world with their humane capacity for forgiveness and peaceful coexistence with their white brethren, even after having been so egregiously wronged, the Palestinians have unfortunately embraced murderous hatred and racism. Arab newspapers routinely publish grotesque caricatures of Jews, and the Palestinians teach kindergarten children to grow up and blow up Israeli buses.' -- 26 December, 2006 -- Shmuley Boteach -- The Jerusalem Post
'Moron' -- crabwalk -- 19 August, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/19/2008 @ 3:37pm
The Bush administration has not ignored Darfur. The State Department has attempted to push the government in the Sudan to stop the genocide.----Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 3:20pm
So Clinton didn't do that too?
And do you think that someday Bush too might say "we didn't do enough on Darfur"???
(actually he wouldn't. The man almost never admits mistakes. S'why SJ likes him so much...heheh)
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 3:49pm
I'm glad to see that Senator Feingold agrees with us that Obama's made a serious Right leaning error. He's likely told him so too.
But Russ is exactly what would get the voters to run screaming back to the polls and support Obama -because right now the screamers are likely not to show up at all.
After all why would our Democratic "leaders" want to do anything different from their last failed attempts??
Progressives like Russ are the exact reason those quid pro quo donors told Schumer and Reid to threaten all Senators who were once on board with Feingold against the Patriot Act and the same ones who told Feingold they wouldn't support his bid for the Presidency because Clinton wasn't as balanced in her foreign policy views as Feingold is, and these are the same quid pro quo donors who beat on Pelosi's door when she said the DNC wasn't going to hand it on a platter to Hillary and last but not least, this same group of bought Democrats and their handlers also made it clear to Obama that he better support FISA or else.
The insiders and leaders aren't backing Obama because Obama won't submit -all the way, and the public is upset that's he's pandered to the insiders at all.
Because lets face it - Schumer and Reid and Emanuel and Hoyer especially have been quite happy where they are- there is no loyalty owed to anyone but themselves and the Republicans wh cross over to keep the Congressional arteries blocked- from all Progress.
Posted by hazmaq at 08/19/2008 @ 3:51pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/19/2008 @ 3:37pm
what do you think? Anything?
Carter is correct in comparing S. Africas aparthied with that of Israel. saying it does not make me anti-semite, nor does it make Carter one.
Israel flew out tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, from Ethiopia, Russia and other places. But, pretty much only Jews. the rest of the goyem were left to rot in place.
Israel is a Jewish state. But, for some reason that is OK, but a Muslim State is a threat to the US? I am in favor of no religion being in charge of any nation. You?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 3:56pm
CRAB, HonLib doesn't talk...he's glossophobic. He can only communicate in quotes.
Try saying something to him with a quote.
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 4:27pm
Or Klingon. The little freak speaks Klingon.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 4:37pm
Maskdelta,
Clinton admitted he was wrong on Rwanda. August 3, 2008. Case closed.
Anything President Bush would try to do on Darfur that would actually work would probably not meet approval by the Left.
It is the Left that advocates working through the U.N., etc, giving peace a chance, talking, dialogue, etc.. In the Sudan genocide is occurring while all the dialogue and peace initiatives take place.
The U.N. has proven itself unable to handle situations such as this. Go alone without the U.N. however, and you get crucification by the Left.
By the way, to switch to comment back to crabwalk:
crabwalk, you say you are in favor of no religion being "in charge" of any nation - who appointed you boss? Since when do you get to decide what other countries and peoples do or do not do?
But since you brought it up, some Islamic entities (whether they be terrorist groups or countries) do pose a threat to the U.S.
They are looked upon with concern by the U.S. because they threaten us, not just because they are Muslim.
But it does seem though, that the "Religion of Peace" seems to tolerate that behavior and even advocate it in some cases.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:39pm
Well, this IS a relief.
Thought I'd have to pay attention to The Nation comment threads. But the only 3 I've seen just today have the same blowhards going waaaay off topic and riding their proReagan, proBush, antiObama hobby horses.
No moderation, huh?
At least there is no need to waste time here.
Posted by DaVinci_Codex at 08/19/2008 @ 4:48pm
"....blowhards going waaaay off topic..."
Posted by DaVinci_Codex at 08/19/2008 @ 4:48pm
Sam Adams has finally released their seasonal custom beer Octoberfest, THE finest beer known to man up to this frickin point in history. Get it while it's there.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 4:56pm
eep orp eep ah ah
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 5:00pm
eep orp eep ah ah
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 5:00pm
pardon?
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 5:03pm
Now they are touting Sibelius, a Hillary Stepford Wife who probably can't even carry her own state. Desperate times for sinking Obama. Sinking like a stone since Hillary found his achilles heel six months ago.
Posted by ReverendWrithe at 08/19/2008 @ 5:05pm
Now they are touting Sibelius, a Hillary Stepford Wife who probably can't even carry her own state. Desperate times for sinking Obama. Sinking like a stone since Hillary found his achilles heel six months ago.
Posted by ReverendWrithe at 08/19/2008 @ 5:06pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 4:56pm
I hear that beer would promote world peace.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:09pm
I hear that beer would promote world peace.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:09pm
It would, but frosty can't have any because he is being sarcastic.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 5:25pm
It would, but frosty can't have any because he is being sarcastic. Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 5:25pm
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 5:33pm
[crabwalk, you say you are in favor of no religion being "in charge" of any nation - who appointed you boss? Since when do you get to decide what other countries and peoples do or do not do?]-SJ
Never said I was in charge. I said I was in favor of no state being religious . That means I would prefer, or would like to see. I have never advocated the overthrow of Israel.
noun 1 an attitude of approval or liking
verb [ trans. ] 1 feel or show approval or preference for
AS I read your posts I see that you were in favor of invading Iraq. Who put you in charge of determining the leaders of a sovereign state? You want to preach to me about being "in charge"? That's just too rich.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 5:51pm
eep orp eep ah ah Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @5:00pm
pardon? Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 5:03pm
That means he loves you.
Jane! Get me off this crazy thing ...
Called Love.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 5:53pm
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 5:53pm
The Jetsons?
Dammit, he did it to me again!
And again, my SOP.
Sorry frosty.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 6:01pm
Since when do you get to decide what other countries and peoples do or do not do?]-SJ
March 2003
Plus some other places like Chile', Iran, Panama, Philippines in the 20th century tells me that I can and do.
I am An AMERICAN dammit! I can say who is in charge anywhere I see my national interest at stake or that might, maybe be a threat!
You neo-cons taught me that. Part of this "education" many of you write about.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 6:01pm
Too much hops added...
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 6:07pm
Blasphemy!
Your punishment, while horrific, is well deserved.
You must drink..a bud.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 6:14pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/19/2008 @ 5:57pm
Actually no it doesn't you are twisting the point to try to make a strawman argument. Look at the numbers Jom. The best economies have a rate of 25-35% corporate taxation. As much as you try to put your fingers in you ears and scream "No, not true" history bears out my point and so do present circumstances. Your proposition of a tax code doesn't work because how many companies in China are exporting compared o the total number of companies. And that only addresses PART of you problem with taxes because you also want no income tax.
Deny deny deny Jom but the facts of the numbers aren't in your favor. Just look at which countries economies do well and which countries economies don't and then look at their tax numbers.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 6:42pm
This is revealing of how you are looking at the American economy Jom. You are look at it in a micro sense. You are looking at it as "Well it helped my company grow so it must be good." You aren't looking at the macro. In small scale that is good for an economy. It is proven throughout modern tax history that in the large scale the opposite is true.
You aren't an economist you are a business operator. So you are only looking from the perspective of one business. But the government does not run like a business. Dealing with economies of scale is not like dealing with one business. It is a whole different ball. What you apply to your business does not work for governments and the facts bear out that what you are proposing is the surest road to the destruction of the American economy. Just look at the tax numbers and judge the economies. There is nothing below 20% in corporate tax and nothing below and average of 20% in income taxes that is even worth mentioning in performance. Of course you will continue to ignore the facts and cling to your small business method of thing the government should be run, but the government is not a small business. It's not exporting widgets to China. It is like a cell in which everything must be balanced.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 6:52pm
You must drink..a bud. Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 6:14pm
How about a Pabst Blue Ribbon?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 6:52pm
Anything President Bush would try to do on Darfur that would actually work would probably not meet approval by the Left-=-----Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2008 @ 4:39pm
So now Bush is "helpless" to do anything about Darfur, huh?
Okay, so I can say Clinton was helpless to do anything about Rwanda because it would not meet the approval of the Right, right???
Or more double standards for Dubya?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 7:52pm
How about a Pabst Blue Ribbon?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2008 @ 6:52pm
Wouldn't it be more merciful to just pull the switch on the guy?!
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 8:32pm
From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli As Delaware Sen. Joe Biden left his home a few minutes ago, golf clubs in tow, he was asked where he was going to be on Saturday.
Biden replied, "Here" and pointed down to his driveway.
As he pulled out of the driveway in the driver's seat of his car he then said to the press gathered near his gate, "You guys have better things to do. I'm not the guy."
I told you, it's Kathleen!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 8:33pm
Barack Obama chooses Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President
August 18, 2008
We have a credible lead that Barack Obama will be announcing Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President / VP.
Our sources work within an ad agency that is hired by the Obama campaign, and have noted that the vast majority of the discussions there are regarding material logistics in terms of Kathleen on the vice president ticket. Now until this is verified please file it as rumor, however our sources on this are not bad.. and have yet to be proven wrong.
Our source noted "It will get a women on the ticket that shares the same views as Obama" a reference to many of the Hillary supporters..
Then of course we had to do some research.
We held some general opinions prior to this little research project. One of them being that they wouldn't have multiple domain providers, it becomes a hassle.. so the chances are they used the same registrar.
The Main BARACK OBAMA site is using Godaddy as their registrar and uses DomainControl.com as their DNS… pretty generic.. as anyone can pretty much do that…
Now were it get's interesting is the other contenders…
Domain Name: BARACKOBAMA.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Name Server: NS05.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS06.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
It appears OBAMASEBELIUS.COM is owned by the Obama Campaign, and the ‘hidden' registration will turn into a website after the announcement. Our lead noted that a site is already being designed .. and advertising agencies are always full of leaks. Again file as rumor until verified…
We will compare the evidence we are allowed to show you without anyone getting fired.
So lets compare our suspect:
Domain Name: OBAMASEBELIUS.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Name Server: NS03.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS04.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 8:49pm
So far a perfect match for Kathleen Sebelius
But let's research this more as there are other contenders out there that could have the exact same output. Let's look at Joe Biden.
Domain Name: OBAMABIDEN.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Name Server: NS19.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS20.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Sounds good so far.. until you see this:
Registrant: LYLE DEAN 1571 CHURCH ST SAN FRANCISCO, California 94131 United States
That's a show stopper… because there is no way that Obama would allow this to happen with the domain name owned by someone else with unknown political views that could turn it into a porn site.
So let's check Senator Evan Bayh, as a potential candidate.
Domain Name: OBAMABAYH.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Name Server: NS1.COFFEYDESIGN.COM Name Server: NS2.COFFEYDESIGN.COM
Nameservers don't match, and to make it worse.. the site goes to an RSS parser.. and nothing more.
So let's try Tim Kaine
Domain Name: OBAMAKAINE.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Name Server: CPNS01.SECURESERVER.NET Name Server: CPNS02.SECURESERVER.NET
Nameservers don't match as well… however the registrar does.
This is possible, however unlikely. The chances are the same group that built BARACKOBAMA.COM will be building the new site. So the chances are that they are all going to be roughly identical.
This evidence isn't conclusive with what is currently available, but the signs do point to Kathleen Sebelius.
Now coupled that with the lead we got.. and we feel there is well over a 50% chance that she will be Obama's vice president.
Enjoy the speculation.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 8:54pm
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 8:33pm
Too bad. It should be Joe Biden and this comes from a female and Hillary lover who is desperate to see a capable woman on the ticket. Biden is brilliant and tough-thanks to the GOP that has tried to destroy him more than once. He knows foreign policy backwards and forwards and is as much of a pit bull as McCain-though without the rabies.
There are women who are perfect for the job, but Barack is enough of a shock to the collective American system. It's ridiculous, but that's the way it is.
Have to say though, I like Senator Obama better every time I hear him speak. I want Senator Clinton's delegates heard at the convention, because they represent me, but once that roll call is over it will be Barack 24/7 till the election.
Posted by Pogge at 08/19/2008 @ 8:55pm
Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2008 @ 8:49pm
Now, if true...what does McCain do? "Me too" and he picks Sarah Palin? Or go find an African-American? (Michael Steele maybe)
If it is a woman, McCain will HAVE to "throw a Hail Mary"....his campaign has made such a big deal out of his Veep selection a week from Friday.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 9:08pm
Sam Adams has finally released their seasonal custom beer Octoberfest, THE finest beer known to man up to this frickin point in history. Get it while it's there.
Oh, you fool. You must not live in Portland, Oregon where we piss the remnants of beer that put Sam Adams products to shame. That and the coffee explain the Willamette's pollution.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/19/2008 @ 10:12pm
RE: Feingold ...
Well, if I were HRC, I wouldn't accept the offer. Veep? Duh, what's that? And why joint a loser ticket?
----------
Nader predicts Obama to pick Clinton By: John F. Harris August 19, 2008 09:30 PM EST
Count Ralph Nader as unimpressed by the crop of supposed finalists to be Barack Obama's running mate.
"I don't think he's that dumb," said Nader, commenting on widespread speculation that Obama's choices are down to Sens. Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.
The smart pick, according to Nader, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Nader phoned into Politico Tuesday afternoon to offer his prediction that a surprise nod to Clinton is actually what Obama has in store--never mind the talk of mistrust between the Clintons and Obama.
"He just has to swallow hard and do what JFK did" in picking rival Lyndon Johnson in 1960, said the liberal activist and maverick presidential candidate.
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/19/2008 @ 10:28pm
american beer?
hahahahaha!
just kidding, you guys make some great beer.
no, molsoncoorschemdrivel is not great beer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:43pm
Well, that's a pleasant surprise. It's been said that McCain is American first and Republican second. Now I believe that's a dream ticket. Obama - Biden? Spare me.
------------
McCain weighs a Lieberman surprise By: Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns August 19, 2008 05:13 PM EST
John McCain is seriously considering choosing a pro-abortion-rights running mate despite vocal resistance from conservatives, with former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) very much in the mix, close McCain advisers say.
Under strong consideration: former Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Ridge, and Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000.
Multiple GOP sources say that party officials in Washington and in the states have been contacted by the McCain campaign in the past two weeks and asked about the fallout from such a choice. One person familiar with the calls said the party was being instructed to prepare for different candidate prototypes -- including one in the mold of Lieberman, who is an independent but still caucuses with the Democrats.
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/19/2008 @ 11:06pm
Posted by onthehelm at 08/19/2008 @ 10:12pm
Ok, that was funny and offensive and I am laughing and pissed off at the same time! It is strange and I don't like it.
Your beer sucks, whatever it is!
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 11:12pm
just kidding, you guys make some great beer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:43pm
YOU guys make some great beer!
Unibroue Maudite! WOW! Expensive though.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 11:15pm
Posted by onthehelm at 08/19/2008 @ 10:12pm
soooo, just for curiosity's sake, what might this beer be?
Posted by Benchrest at 08/19/2008 @ 11:22pm
Portland has a load of microbreweries (as does the rest of the state and Washington). If you are ever in town, check out the Lucky Labrador brewpub as well as the Rogue pub (the Rogue brewery is down the coast in Newport), although most of the bars here have really good beer (as well as Pabst...sigh). Comparison with Sam Adams (whose beers I actually do like, although are hard to find here--cream stout was always a nice one, and yes, the Octoberfest is wonderful)? Rogue's Hazelnut Ale is great. See: http://www.rogue.com/ as well as: http://www.luckylab.com/.
We have a great organic beer brewery, Roots. They make an ultra-stout that they only serve in a small glass. Talk about promoting mass transit.
Cheers.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/20/2008 @ 12:17am
john maasch:
It gets worse. What's supposed to happen next is what is not going to happen next: since the value of the dollar is sinking, the cost to foreigners of our goods and services will go down, making our goods more attractive, meaning that foreigners should buy more of our goods, our exports should go up, the trade deficit should go down, bada bing, everything should be hunky-dory. And exports have been going up, except that according to The New York Times, the "Export boom helps farms, not American factories":
But the world is not suddenly snapping up made-in-America goods like aircraft, machinery and staplers. The great attraction is decidedly low-luster commodities like corn, wheat, ore and scrap metal ... while Boeing's aircraft or Caterpillar's tractors are distinctive and sought after, corn grown in Iowa is virtually interchangeable with corn grown in Argentina or any other bread-basket country. "Over a long period," Mr. Bivens [of the Economic Policy Institute] said, "commodities contribute right around zero to export growth."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 12:22am
Hey, how come Obama is not considering John Edwards as VP? I've been reading all the major newspapers, and watching all the network news broadcasts, and I can't seem to see or hear a thing about him anymore. And he has done such a wonderful job of standing by his wife in her time of tribulation! Seems to me, he would make such a fine complement to Barack! Anybody know why he seems to have disappeared from the news?
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 01:14am
"And exports have been going up, except that according to The New York Times, the "Export boom helps farms, not American factories": "
I notice FZ that you still make selective use of the information that you paste up.
Further down in the article you quote from, the following indicates that manufacturing exports are about 40% and farm commodity exports at 26% and manufacturing exports grew by a fairly healthy 12%.
"All U.S. exports of goods and services in the first half of the year rose at a $52 billion annual rate, adjusted for inflation, up 7.1 percent. Commodities accounted for 41 percent of the increase and manufactured products contributed just 12 percent, the bureau reported. (The figures strip out such items as arms sales and exports to American territories, like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.)
Such unevenness, favouring commodities, is unusual, given that manufactured products, even by this definition, account for 40 percent of the nation's exports, while commodities make up only 26 percent and services 30 percent. Indeed, not since the bureau began compiling detailed trade data in 1977 have commodities outpaced manufactured exports for two consecutive quarters."
That despite the trend by US manufacturers to outsource.
In catching up I also noticed you are an expert on Aussie droughts. Here's a radio spot by our best warming alarmist slayer, giving our Al Gore aka Tim Flannery a bit of a free plug on the accuracy of his AGW predictions. And for you a bit of the good oil on your present Aussie "drought".
http://tinyurl.com/6x33xa
Further you can catch up on how our mother tongue should be "spoke". Andrew Bolt gets about one million hits per day on his blog. Many from enraged true believers.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/20/2008 @ 03:58am
Anybody know why he seems to have disappeared from the news? Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 01:14am
Actually ponti, Edwards has not disappeared from the news. He is talked and written about almost daily.
Dallas Morning News:
THE JOHN EDWARDS AFFAIR 12:00 AM CDT on Sunday, August 17, 2008
Ronald Parker, Plano "Did Clinton or Obama know?"
"Timing of disclosure is suspect"
I saw lips moving about this topic on the Sunday shows too. Alas, you are wrong...again. Something we are all used to.
But, maybe we could ask you were Scooter has gone? Or maybe you could tell us why Sen Stevens isn't a name bandied about in MCcains inner circle?
I guess those guys kept their cock in their pants, so no harm, right?
--------
LRJONES!!
How the heck are you? Missed ya. I guess you've been doing some engineering in Baghdad? Looks like the war could be over in as little as three years now.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/20/2008 @ 07:55am
Anybody know why he seems to have disappeared from the news? Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 01:14am
Channel 4, NYC:
Edwards' Ally Explains Payments To Mistress5:12 am EDT August 15, 2008
Edwards' Affair Coverage: Tawdry Journalism?12:11 am EDT August 12, 2008
PEOPLE.com
The Edwards Affair: The Mysterious Other Woman, Rielle Hunter By Nicole Weisensee Egan, Frank Swertlow and Lorenzo Benet Originally posted Thursday August 14, 2008 12:40 PM EDT
Aug 19, 2008 ... Last Friday, John Edwards admitted to Bob Woodruff of ABC New