Gas Bandit's Political Thread III
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
- Status
Or, you know, we could have kept the doors to the cockpits of the planes locked. Which we do now. A simpler solution that works better.GasBandit said:
Maybe it was the Georgia war that CAUSED the Russians to decide they needed to rearm. They waited until now to announce it because they needed a few months to decide to actually do it - sovereign nations usually don't decide to do something so important very quickly. Face it, you're projecting your own ideas about Obama onto the Russians, in reality you have NO IDEA what they think of him.
Inflation could certainly be a problem at some point. It's not now, however - not even close, deflation remains a possibility.
Yes, Obama is SO dependent on his teleprompter. That's why he won all the Presidential debates. And why all of his press conferences have gone so well. *rolls eyes* I really don't get the "Obama <3 teleprompter" meme. All politicians in set speaches are dependent on their teleprompters. But Barack is clearly a very articulate guy, a great speaker, with or without one. Do conservatives (and libertarians who dislike him) just feel threatned by how good of a communicater he is, so they have to degenerate it in some way? *shrugs*
You must have read that article wrong. Colorado's electors will ONLY go to the winner of the national popular vote IF enough states to total 270 electoral votes all pass such bills. It's a way to basically get rid of the electoral college that's constitutional (states can explicitly award their electors however they see fit) but doesn't require an actual constitutional amendment. So far, four other states totally 50 electoral votes (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey) have passed such laws, so it's still got a ways to go. Until states representing 270 electoral votes pass such bills, Colorado and the other states will assign their electors the more normal way, ie, to the winner of their states popular vote.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Armed pilots would not have stopped 9/11. Locked doors wouldn't have worked either. One of the few things that may have actually changed on 9/11 is how we respond to airline hostage takers.
Back then, armed pilots still would have acquiesced to the hostage takers immediate, in-flight demands - the first being that the pilots disarm or we kill some passengers - because the pilots would never have suspected that the hostage takers were planning something unprecedented.
Armed pilots still won't make a difference, and are more dangerous than locked doors. I mean, how the hell do pilots respond before the hostages are taken? And if they do respond, they risk being ambushed, overwhelmed by greater numbers or just plain missing the target before the target gets to them. Once the pilot goes down the plane is in the hands of the hostage takers.
So what the hell is the point of arming them?
Back then, armed pilots still would have acquiesced to the hostage takers immediate, in-flight demands - the first being that the pilots disarm or we kill some passengers - because the pilots would never have suspected that the hostage takers were planning something unprecedented.
Armed pilots still won't make a difference, and are more dangerous than locked doors. I mean, how the hell do pilots respond before the hostages are taken? And if they do respond, they risk being ambushed, overwhelmed by greater numbers or just plain missing the target before the target gets to them. Once the pilot goes down the plane is in the hands of the hostage takers.
So what the hell is the point of arming them?
You make some good points hollow (yeah, I know who you are :shock: ) but they aren't any different from the other sides points, they are just thoughts that don't really have anything to back them up. We can say all we want that "Armed pilots will/won't blahblahblah" but none of us really know. We can listen to the pilots and hear their thoughts, they certainly have a perspective none of us can have. All of your points are possible but so are the other sides. A pilot with a gun COULD save the day or he COULD make it worse. I'm not really taking a side on it cause, well, it seems like we are just conjecturing without any real practice of the issue to look at.
GasBandit
Staff member
Again, I'm going to have to beg forgiveness for not being able to respond in a timely fashion. This very well might be my last post today (meaning until monday)... we'll have to see.
Two items of personal note... night before last, a homeless man spent the night in my car. That's a genuinely new experience for me. Second of all, seems Obama cut my taxes. My federal deduction went down by about 20 bucks. Eh, I'll take it. How about some more of that, and some spending cuts to do with it?
Ok, today's links -
The house passed the 90% tax on bonuses in a huge show of populist political pandering.
James Hansen has his boxers in a bunch because the democratic process isn't working fast enough to appease his global warmers. Don't you have more data to fudge somewhere, Jimmy?
Eric Holder wants to release Gitmo detainees into the U.S.
A study shows that wages for legal workers rose after immigration raids. Duhhhhh.
Joe Biden apparently is on the naughty list for the swimming pool crowd after his comments about swimming pools included in the economic stimulus package.
What are the government schools up to in Dallas? TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES! TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES!
Have you seen this picture of Vladimir Putin as a KGB officer, posing as a tourist with Ronald Reagan?
No, Bernie, you don't get to await sentencing in your posh penthouse. Not yours.
Britain's state-run health service has failed to boost survival rates for cancer patients substantially, despite tripling investment in cancer care over the past decade.
170 years after beheading a Ghanian king... Holland is sending the head home.
Two items of personal note... night before last, a homeless man spent the night in my car. That's a genuinely new experience for me. Second of all, seems Obama cut my taxes. My federal deduction went down by about 20 bucks. Eh, I'll take it. How about some more of that, and some spending cuts to do with it?
Espy says it well enough for me not to reiterate.Gruebeard said:
I think I do. It's not so hard to see. Hell, if 40% of americans see obama as weak, why wouldn't our once-and-future adversaries be even more so inclinde?Dieb said:
How many trillions of new fiat money does it take to turn "possible" deflation into inflation?
Now THAT'S a load of horsepucky. Every time obama got off his teleprompter he said something his apologists (hah, love being able to use that word now) had to cover for or spin. "I just want to spread the wealth around." "...here to honor fallen veterans, some of which I see standing here today..." "...have visited 57 states..." "...it makes no sense to send a kid with asthma to the hospital when you could just
I must have. I read it very quickly and I missed the part about it not going into effect until all the other states has also ratified it.
Ok, today's links -
The house passed the 90% tax on bonuses in a huge show of populist political pandering.
James Hansen has his boxers in a bunch because the democratic process isn't working fast enough to appease his global warmers. Don't you have more data to fudge somewhere, Jimmy?
Eric Holder wants to release Gitmo detainees into the U.S.
A study shows that wages for legal workers rose after immigration raids. Duhhhhh.
Joe Biden apparently is on the naughty list for the swimming pool crowd after his comments about swimming pools included in the economic stimulus package.
What are the government schools up to in Dallas? TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES! TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES!
Have you seen this picture of Vladimir Putin as a KGB officer, posing as a tourist with Ronald Reagan?
No, Bernie, you don't get to await sentencing in your posh penthouse. Not yours.
Britain's state-run health service has failed to boost survival rates for cancer patients substantially, despite tripling investment in cancer care over the past decade.
170 years after beheading a Ghanian king... Holland is sending the head home.
S
Soliloquy
...yikes.Espy said:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE0yAEvVsUo:1y8gj74s][/youtube:1y8gj74s]
Can someone please remind our president not to make fun of handicapped people on NATIONAL television?
I'm not a big fan of the guy, but somehow I never expected Obama to make a stupid comment like this.
I just want to see what the public's reaction is to this, once word spreads.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29784865/Espy said:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE0yAEvVsUo:1z7e0phk][/youtube:1z7e0phk]
Can someone please remind our president not to make fun of handicapped people on NATIONAL television?
That was fast.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Yeah, I had thought to delete the second half of my post before submitting it because it was conjecture. The first half though, the bit about stopping 9/11 I wouldn't place in the same category . . . though I rather get the sense that you weren't really replying to that part anyway.Espy said:
Eh, there are already columns talking this down and saying how he's forgiven and it's totally understandable, etc, etc. It's not gonna linger like some of the dumb stuff bushiejr did. However it does justify those who said there are reasons presidents don't do shows like this during office.Futureking said:
S
Soliloquy
That depresses me, actually. I mean... this is a National Leader. And a Democrat. Mocking the mentally disabled.Espy said:
If immediately pushing this under the rug ends up being the common opinion, is there anything the nation will hold the guy accountable for?
(I totally agree that presidents shouldn't show up on talk shows, though. Bad things can happen)
GasBandit
Staff member
One of our radio jocks used to like to play a movie clip on the air which said "That's like being the smartest kid with down syndrome!" One day a parent and his child with trisomy 21 heard it on the air. He started a big stink about it on a local community internet forum. When the jock heard about it, he showed up at the forum and basically posted "I'm sorry you can't take a joke." Aaaaand it just went downhill from there. He doesn't work here any more (though, I must disclose this isn't why).Espy said:
I knew I had this somewhere.. had to go dig up a Bush moment for this occasion -
Supply and demand. Hooray for economics.
I'm not one of those rah-rah "local jobs for local citizens" people. Frankly, its nothing more than competition. Immigrants work hard. Just work twice as hard. They work twice as hard. Just work thrice as hard.
Bring it on.
40%? Are you serious? You completely made that number up. His approval rating is still over 60%, and his disapproval under 30%. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116845/Obama ... inton.aspx) I'd guess the actual answer (if there even is a poll about it) would be much, much smaller. You're falling into the classic trap of feeling that your views are much more prevalent than they actually are. The fact is that Obama is still very popular - more popular than the last two Presidents were at this point in their terms. If you can't tell what your fellow citizens feel about Obama (and you clearly can't) why would you know what other nations think about him?GasBandit said:
Good question. And there is no simple answer. However, in a recession as large as this one, the trend towards deflation is extremely strong. Which is why, despite all the money pumped into the economy, that the CPI is still right around zero. Once the economy starts recovering (in a year, in a few years, whatever) there is a strong possibility of high inflation, especially if the Fed doesn't realize we're in a recovery for some time. But you cross that stream once you get to it. First, you gotta get the economy to start recovering.
Guess what? On the campaign trail, when you're talking in front of cameras for hours every day, for months - you're going to make slips of the tongue. The fact that Obama has made SO LITTLE that you're citing the 57 states comment (talk about an honest mistake) is actually amazing. As for your politico link, I think it's just plain wrong. Obama has been EXTREMELY effective with his town hall appearances (which are off the teleprompter, by the way) at pushing his agenda. He's managed to get quite a bit done in only two months - but maintains very high approval ratings. He hasn't won all the 24 hour news cycles, which is all that the silly mainstream media (yes, politico is filled with those types) care about. But he does get what he wants, and he stays very popular doing it. Seems like he's doing something right. And I think that "something" is communicating with the American people quite well. Do you have any evidence that he isn't?
Just to give some context to the article, yes, those 17 Uighur detainees are going to have to be released into the US. You see, the Uighurs are a Muslim ethnic group that lives (and is in fact the dominant ethnic group) in the far western province of China, Xinjiang. They don't like living under Chinese rule, however, and there are many separatist groups within Xinjiang - the 17 Uighur detainees belonged to one of them. The Uighurs are, however, very pro US. Basically because we've been sending radio shows into Xinjiang for many years now, claiming that the US will eventually free the Uighurs from Chinese rule (obviously, false promises - many of those Uighur separatist groups are labeled as terrorist organizations by the State department to pacify the Chinese and get them on our side in the War on Terror).
So anyway, these 17 detainees - they were just in the wrong place (Afghanistan) at the wrong time (when we invaded it). They were not affiliated with Al Quaeda or any other anti-US group whatsoever. They got sent to Gitmo because the last administration was amazingly incompetent. These people were not taking part in killing Americans, or our allies. In fact when they first got taken into US custody they were extremely happy, due to how pro US these separatist groups are. They're probably not so happy at the US now that they've been held in prison for so many years on false charges, but that's another story. Now, they've been ordered released by US courts (sense even the Bush administration eventually admitted that they were innocent of all wrong doing) but they can't be sent back to China. The Chinese government would just kill them. So what the hell else are we going to do with them? Continue to imprison them for no reason whatsoever?
GasBandit
Staff member
It wasn't meant as an exact figure, it was a rough approximation, further propped by a (roughly) 60% approval rating. Not everything I say is meant as an encyclopedic research result. Some of it is general conversation, as was the above bit.Dieb said:
I'm also a little suprised that h-e-l-l is censored by the filter.
Good question. And there is no simple answer. However, in a recession as large as this one, the trend towards deflation is extremely strong. Which is why, despite all the money pumped into the economy, that the CPI is still right around zero. Once the economy starts recovering (in a year, in a few years, whatever) there is a strong possibility of high inflation, especially if the Fed doesn't realize we're in a recovery for some time. But you cross that stream once you get to it. First, you gotta get the economy to start recovering.[/quote:12tbhoek] Crossing streams when we came to them is, I think, a large part of how we got where we are. Kicking the can down the road to deal with later. A lot of our discussions seem to hinge on a difference of opinion in that you seem to think the indicators control the market and I think the market controls the indicators. And frankly, "all the money pumped into the economy" largely has barely left the hose yet, and even when it does it's not necessarily in areas that actually stimulate, even if you buy into keynesian government-spending-to-stimulate theory (which, again, I know you do and I don't).
Guess what? On the campaign trail, when you're talking in front of cameras for hours every day, for months - you're going to make slips of the tongue. The fact that Obama has made SO LITTLE that you're citing the 57 states comment (talk about an honest mistake) is actually amazing. As for your politico link, I think it's just plain wrong. Obama has been EXTREMELY effective with his town hall appearances (which are off the teleprompter, by the way) at pushing his agenda. He's managed to get quite a bit done in only two months - but maintains very high approval ratings. He hasn't won all the 24 hour news cycles, which is all that the silly mainstream media (yes, politico is filled with those types) care about. But he does get what he wants, and he stays very popular doing it. Seems like he's doing something right. And I think that "something" is communicating with the American people quite well. Do you have any evidence that he isn't?[/quote:12tbhoek] An Honest mistake?! An HONEST MISTAKE?! I don't think even at the drunkest I've ever been in my life I've ever mistaken how many states there are in the union. It hasn't changed in quite a while after all... the 50th was added 2 years before Obama was born.
Every time he gets away from his teleprompter, he starts to stumble, or gaffe, or let his mask slip. He claims his uncle liberated auschwitz. He wants more Arabic speakers in afghanistan. He claims his parents got together because of a civil rights landmark that happened 4 years after he was born. He tells Larry King "we don't have the technological capacity" to make the hillary/mac commercial parody. He claims 10,000 died in kansas when in reality only 12 did. Calls "Cuba, Venezuela and IRAN" "tiny little countries" that "pose no threat." He tells who he thinks to be a struggling entrepreneur that what he wants to do is "spread the wealth around" by taxing.
Axelrod has him on so tight a leash that they take the teleprompter everywhere he goes now, and as evidenced by the st patrick's day bit, he doesn't even know what he's going to say until he reads it off the prompter. He takes the damn thing to a rodeo.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw:12tbhoek][/youtube:12tbhoek]
Another thing that got noticed... Back in September 2008 when McCain said he thought the "fundamentals of the American economy are strong" he got slapped with the "out of touch" label by the obama campaign. This was before the big october crash even. This week, Obama's chief economic advisor said pretty much the same thing. So I guess things are better now than they were last september?
Actually, no, it's not further propped up by the 60% number. Unless you think "not willing to say they approve of the President" is the same as saying "thinks the President is weak", which is NUTS. Only around 27% are willing to say they disaprove of the President, for God's sake, which is a lot less strong of an accusation than saying he's WEAK. Do you seriously think someone is willing to say the President is weak, but not say they disapprove of him? I sure as hell know people would be willing to go the other way (ie, say they disaprove of him, but not go so far as to say he's weak) which, logically, would point to the figure who think he's weak as less than 27%. Sure, it's casual conversation, but all evidence I can find points to the actual number being a lot bloody less than your number.GasBandit said:
CPI is not an "indicator" of inflation. It is a measure of inflation. No, it is THE measure of inflation. It is the definition of inflation in this country. Also, actually, a huge amount of money (an amount that dwarfs the stimulus) already HAS been pumped into the economy. By the Federal Reserve. Moreover, the way inflation works is that if you know the monetary supply will expand in the future, you get inflation today (if you KNOW there will be inflation in the future, you'll take actions that will cause inflation today).
On the other hand, I do agree that our economy has had far too much kicking the can down the road. But in the specific case of possible inflation, I'm ok with it. Mainly because the Fed has gotten rather good at containing inflation. Especially as the inflation that might happen would be induced by the Fed, that makes it easier for the Fed to contain it later. I'll admit, there are risks involved. It could get out of control. I simply think that the risk is small, and the downside of doing nothing is worse than the downside of high inflation in the future.
Yes. An honest mistake, a slip of the tongue. There were 57 contests for delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination (which includes things like Guam, Puerto Rico, two for Texas (they had a primary and a caucus) etc etc). He had a slip of the tongue and said "states" instead of "contests", which becomes obvious in the context of whenever he actually said that. Do you seriously think if you recorded everything you said for months you wouldn't make any silly mistake like that? I know I would say things that would be stupider than that.
He says "Auschwitz" instead of "Dachau". Oh my, what a liar! He says "Afghanistan" instead of "Iraq" one time, in months of saying those two things litterally thousands of times. He can't speak without a teleprompter! And on and on. ANY politician has plenty of these moments - presidential candidates, who are in front of more cameras than most, even more so. I could make such a list for McCain pretty easily. I bet Regean made a lot of these silly mistakes as well. Obviously I don't even have to talk about W's verbal stumblings. But you expect Obama to be different somehow?
Oh, but I fogot to bring this up:
You've been lied to. He sayd "Cuba, Venezuela and IRAN" were "tiny little countries" that "don't pose a serious threat to us"....."COMPARED TO THE SOVIET UNION". Context is everything. Here's a blog post from NRO with the full quote, just so you can't accuse me of biased sources (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/ ... MzY2YxMjc=). Of course, the author is a complete idiot and seems to think those countries ARE a bigger threat than the USSR, but that's NRO for you. None of those countries has thousands of nuclear weapons trained on US cities. None of those countries could completely wipe out all of civilization. Do you seriously want to argue this?
Oh, and Joe the Plummer, the "struggling entrepreneur" you were talking about, actually recieves a tax cut (both under Obama's plan during the elections and the laws passed and proposed so far).
But back to the original point: yes, he makes mistakes when speaking. He's human. That doesn't mean he's not an excellent communicator without a teleprompter. He won all three debates. He's been extremely effective at the town hall meetings he's been having since his inaugeration. Maybe if you paid attention more attention to how he's managed to spend so much political capital while still having sky high approval ratings, and less time ranting about teleprompters, you'd (by which I mean the whole opposition) would be doing a better job stopping, or at least slowing down, his agenda.
Christiana Romer is by no means Obama's "chief economic advisor". Laurence Summers, Geithner, Volker, Bernake...all these people are more important advisors. But in any case, McCain is a politician, Romer is an economist. These two occupations have different goals in life. Politicians are supposed to emphasize with us (ie, lie sometimes to make us feel better). Economists, on the other hand, are actually supposed to tell the truth. So yes, the fundamentals of our economy ARE strong. But McCain chose exactly the wrong time to say that. Of course, McCain is also extremely ill-informed when it comes to domestic matters (at least he is for a Presidential candidate), harping on him for this comment was dishonest by the Obama campaign, but it did get to a deeper truth. How's that for justification
J
JCM
Aww, to be fair its always amazing how things like religion and political inclination can make one so blind to anything but what he believes in.Krisken said:
In a fantastic display projection, Brit Hume worries that blogging and websites will make news too partisan.
“What are we getting?” Hume asked. “We’re getting bloggers and websites and all sorts of individual entrepreneurs, and we have a vaster menu of choices today than we’ve ever had.”
“But I think that we also have the danger that everything will be presented from one political viewpoint or the other, and that the media that confront us are going to be more partisan than ever—which means that the Media Research Center will have a mission for many years to come, and a good thing that is.”
“What are we getting?” Hume asked. “We’re getting bloggers and websites and all sorts of individual entrepreneurs, and we have a vaster menu of choices today than we’ve ever had.”
“But I think that we also have the danger that everything will be presented from one political viewpoint or the other, and that the media that confront us are going to be more partisan than ever—which means that the Media Research Center will have a mission for many years to come, and a good thing that is.”
Must resist snarky comment on the neutrality of any news site.Krisken said:
He's just stating the obvious actually. There's no such thing as a purely neutral news source.
Apathy is the best form of neutrality, eh?JCM said:Aww, to be fair its always amazing how things like religion and political inclination can make one so blind to anything but what he believes in.Krisken said:
I
Iaculus
Me, I prefer scientific scepticism. Then again, that's probably a slant in and of itself...Futureking said:Apathy is the best form of neutrality, eh?JCM said:Aww, to be fair its always amazing how things like religion and political inclination can make one so blind to anything but what he believes in.Krisken said:
T
Twitch
I like to think of myself as a good public speaker and I enjoy attending lectures and speeches but if you were to count the uhs of someone who is not reading something or reciting something he has memorized it's almost always comically high.
J
JCM
Im a centrist and basically laugh at both sides, and how they turn a blind eye to their side but waste hours babbling about the other.Iaculus said:Me, I prefer scientific scepticism. Then again, that's probably a slant in and of itself...Futureking said:Apathy is the best form of neutrality, eh?JCM said:Aww, to be fair its always amazing how things like religion and political inclination can make one so blind to anything but what he believes in.Krisken said:
But then you guys have given me much entertainment, with hopes of a drawn-out war and increased terrorism, so nowadays I just
I know that my leanings are to the left, though when an argument is seriously presented in a logical manner from the right I do my best to give it the merit it deserves. Unfortunately, most of the posts in this thread are so hostile in nature (and intentionally condescending) I can't help but take a defensive posture.JCM said:
Remember. Hyperbole is a form of logic.Krisken said:
Krisken said:
I was going to avoid links due to the people involved (O'Reilly and a blogger on Think Progress), but I'll add them here.A Troll said:
Amanda Terkel with her account of events
Amanda's first follow up before O'Reilly segment airs
After O'Reilly segment airs
Please keep in mind that the issue I am interested in is the journalism, not the subjects.
Okay, having checked out the links you've provided I vote sad state of our media. I think it's pathetic the way that they have to ambush people, and still edit the hell out of the segment, just to frame things in the most favorable way. Of course, I don't consider O'Reilly a journalist. Same goes for any partisan mouthpiece, from Coulter and Limbaugh to Olbermann and Franken. They're all no better than slimy shock jocks on morning radio.Krisken said:
- Status