Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 11:16:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82529 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left  (Read 37152 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #400 on: August 18, 2013, 01:38:50 PM »

Republicans will cause a constitutional crisis if they fail to fund Obamacare in the new budget, because it is the law of the land, and requires more than a vote by one chamber to be repealed.

If so, then what about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed in 1982 requiring the construction a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain?


"Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has robbed Yucca Mountain of funding, and although President Barack Obama has commissioned a blue-ribbon panel to look at other nuclear-waste alternatives, Yucca Mountain is still the law of the land."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steve-sebelius/ignoring-law-yucca-not-real-solution

"The D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week delivered a scathing rebuke to the Obama administration, ordering it to restart work on the Yucca licensing process."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579014913001031336.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #401 on: August 18, 2013, 06:55:37 PM »

I confess to be a bit unclear here.

If the point is that Dingy Harry et al were in the wrong, then wouldn't the Reps be wrong here?

a) Not necessarily IMHO because Obama is violating his oath to enforce the law by picking and choosing.

b) Note too that according to Jim DeMint (and his analysis seems sound to me) not funding Obamacare is NOT shutting down the government (which goes very badly for the Reps when they do this)-- this is a tremendous canard-- because presumably the rest of the government will be funded-- or am I missing something here?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #402 on: August 19, 2013, 09:37:50 AM »

"If the point is that Dingy Harry et al were in the wrong, then wouldn't the Reps be wrong here?"

Yes, hypocrisy cuts both ways.  In this case Dems accuse R's of contemplating what they themselves do regularly.

My view with spending authorizations is that one congress has no power to bind the next congress to spend money.  The congress of 2009 never had the authority to bind the voters of 2013 and beyond.


"not funding Obamacare is NOT shutting down the government ... because presumably the rest of the government will be funded-- or am I missing something here?"

That is the way I thought it was designed to work.  A bill goes to the House, to the Senate and then to the President.  Instead, a bill passes in the House.  The Senate ignores or intentionally changes that and passes a different bill.  A joint committee writes a 'compromise' to send back to the House, to the Senate and then to the President.

It is in this second loop where Republicans get screwed and end up with the stark choice of funding everything or closing the government.  Their own bill was clear - to fund everything except healthcare.  That will no longer be the issue and they don't have enough bully pulpit to say that it is.

Government spending be the smallest number of what the House, Senate pass and President will sign.  That, and no more, is the amount we all agree on.  In fact, it is the biggest spenders who force the choice of fund it all or shut down the government.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #403 on: September 03, 2013, 11:59:36 AM »

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #404 on: September 03, 2013, 12:01:56 PM »



http://ace.mu.nu/

September 03, 2013

Shock: Democrats' Deeply-Felt and Principled Opposition to War in All Its Forms Ended, Coincidentally Enough, Upon the Election of one Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel Peace Lauraeate

—Ace







You know when we used to claim that the Democrats were playing games with foreign policy and national security to advance their petty animal partisan interests?

We were all so wrong!

I have entitled the following graph "Nuance and Profound Intellectual Analysis."


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #405 on: September 04, 2013, 12:43:10 PM »

David Burge @iowahawkblog

Global warming has apparently wiped out the Puff-Chested North American War Protester.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #406 on: September 11, 2013, 01:47:17 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIbl28O99Lg&noredirect=1
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #407 on: October 01, 2013, 03:30:41 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/30/lifelong-hollywood-democrat-jumps-ship-to-join-gop-endorses-republican-candidate-for-governor/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #408 on: October 03, 2013, 07:50:50 PM »


 
Buffett; an enigma to me

« on: Today at 10:54:48 AM »
Remove message 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He doesn't mention either party per se but he is clearly speaking out about Republicans.  I have no problem with the genius in Nebraska.  I just understand why he is such a Democrat Partisan.  He has lived his whole life like a capitalist.  And he does let people share in his wealth by investing in his stock.   He plans on giving most away via the Gates Foundation.   While he uses his influence, money, and international sources of intelligence to leverage his investments to his favor there has been no evidence of unethical or illegal activity to my knowledge.   Yet he still supports a party and President that are socialist in nature.   I wonder how this is.   I guess one can say the same for Gates.   Gates was as ruthless as anyone in business on the way to the top.   Now that he is there suddenly he is a die hard Democrat who believes in transfer of wealth rather than individualism, freedom, competition, self reliance, and responsibility? 

The only thing I can think of is it must be something psychiatric to this.   They must have a need to feel loved.  Maybe they are guilty?  I admire their charity.   I don't admire them making the great masses who work hard and strive in their work the way they did, albeit of course without the extreme financial success into goats who are just greedy selfish etc.

They want to give their money away go ahead.   Most of us don't have fortunes that are so vast we can only dream of how to spend it over several lifetimes.  That doesn't mean it is my fault that people may be starving thousands of miles from here.  Or that there are poor people down the street.  What about helping them help themselves?   

I am ruminating.  There just seems to be some disconnect between the way these guys have lived and their politics now.


*****Buffett speaks out against DC's 'extreme idiocy'
By Matthew J. Belvedere | CNBC – 3 hours ago..

.Lacy O'Toole | CNBCView Photo.
Lacy O'Toole | CNBC

History will judge the Troubled Asset Relief Program more positively than people do now,  Warren Buffett  said on CNBC Thursday-five years to the day since the financial bailout program was signed into law, and in the midst of the first government shutdown in 17 years.

Appearing alongside former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on CNBC's " Squawk Box ," Buffett first addressed TARP-saying people don't realize how tough a position Paulson was in when he crafted the rescue package.

(Read more:  Hank Paulson: Teaparty 'hijacked the debate' )

The chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A) said the bailout was vital at the time in order to shore up the credibility of the banking system. "Belief creates its own reality," Buffett said. "If people think the banking system is unsound, it is unsound, because no bank can pay out all of its liabilities at the same time."


The interviews were conducted a day after chief executives from major financial institutions met with President  Barack Obama , and warned of adverse consequences if government agencies remain closed, and if lawmakers failed to raise the U.S.  debt ceiling  by mid-October.

 (Read more:  Wall Street CEOs sound alarms on fiscal problems )

Later in the day, the president spoke to CNBC-saying he's genuinely worried about what is going on in Washington and exasperated that Republicans are trying use to the shutdown and the borrowing limit fight as leverage to delay Obamacare. (Read more below the video.)

"If [Republicans] can't get their way on another issue, they'll use the threat of, in effect, defaulting on the government's credit to get their way," Buffett said. "That won't work long-term."


"The public will turn on them, and they'll all of a sudden have a counter revelation," he predicted-adding that Washington "will go right up to the point of extreme idiocy" but won't cross it.

Buffett did provide a glimmer of hope if the Oct. 17 debt limit deadline is breached. "If it goes one second beyond the debt limit, that will not do us in. If it goes a year beyond that would be unbelievable."

 (Read more:  Obama to Wall Street: This time be worried )

"These guys may threaten to take their mother hostage, but they will never hurt their mother," joked Paulson, who's also a former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs (GS).

Buffett played a crucial role in providing capital during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis, and rescuing Paulson's old firm. Berkshire's $5 billion lifeline to Goldman Sachs at the time has proved quite lucrative today. Berkshire has now  exercised warrants  acquired as part of the original deal-netting more than $2 billion in Goldman stock.

In addition to the warrants, that Berkshire-infusion had called for the investment bank to provide Berkshire with $5 billion in preferred stock, which paid annual dividends of $500 million. Three years later, Goldman repurchased those preferred shares from Buffett at a premium.****
 
 
 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #409 on: October 08, 2013, 05:07:31 PM »

Citizens are not allowed on the Mall but illegals are permitted.  The excuse is "first amendment rights".

*****Pro-Amnesty Forces Rally on National Mall

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email ArticlePrint articleSend a Tip 
by Matthew Boyle  8 Oct 2013, 11:28 AM PDT 925  post a comment 
 
Several thousand AFL-CIO and SEIU sponsored pro-amnesty demonstrators began rallying on Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon around 12:30 PM to call for Congress to grant legal status to America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants. 

The size of the crowd suggest the organization that put on the rally, the Center for Community Change (CCC), under-delivered on its promise to have “hundreds of thousands” attend the rally; the group tweeted on Monday afternoon and on Tuesday morning that it expected “hundreds of thousands” of people to attend.

Several members of Congress are in attendance at the event, including GOP Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is expected to join the event soon as well, an organizer confirmed to Breitbart News.

Scores of Democratic House members also began arriving shortly after 12:30 PM on golf carts. House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is scheduled to speak as well, as are many different labor union officials. Washington, D.C. mayor Vince Gray is slated to address the group too.

Illegal immigrants and union members have been chanting “Si Se Puede!” the Spanish slogan of the United Farm Workers which President Barack Obama adapted for his “Yes we can!” campaign slogan.

The event on the National Mall, which is supposed to be closed because of the ongoing government shutdown but to which the Obama administration granted exception for today's rally, is heavily funded by organizations like the labor unions and amnesty special interest lobbyists sponsoring it. At least four jumbotrons and an elaborate setup of port-a-potties, special event fencing, tents, and raised and lighted stages are set up across the National Mall.

AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Casa De Maryland organizers are walking around in groups, wearing orange vests labeled with their organization’s namesake printed on them. 

Referencing how union dues from working class American citizens are being used to help fund this rally, a congressional GOP aide told Breitbart News, “It is utterly shameful that these big money interests have fooled so many they’re trying to hurt into helping them.” If amnesty were to pass, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and many other high-ranking economists expect wages of American workers to be driven down while similarly expecting unemployment to go up.

In a statement released as the rally was about to begin, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that this is unfair to American workers. “Why are businesses laying off thousands and then spending a fortune to lobby for ‘comprehensive immigration reform’?” Sessions said. “That’s because, in Washington, ‘comprehensive reform’ means increasing the number of immigrant workers to reduce the cost of labor."

"The Senate bill would double the number of guest workers and add 30 million mostly lower-skill legal immigrants over the next ten years. Today’s rally is designed to pressure the House to pass similar legislation," he explained. "There’s something odd about House leaders like Nancy Pelosi protesting on the Mall to get jobs for illegal aliens and pushing legislation to reduce job opportunities for US citizens. The House must resist calls to replace struggling workers and instead fight for the public interest and to restore our shrinking middle class.”

- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/08/Pro-amnesty-forces-rally-on-National-Mall#sthash.jyLaoYTl.dpuf****
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #410 on: October 10, 2013, 10:55:52 AM »

The Leftists only have one problem, their policies don't work.  Other than that, this is as good as it gets.  

A decade ago they could only wield power from the minority in congress with amplification by the media.

Then the Leftists won back the House and Senate with Pelosi-Reid-Hillary-Obama-Biden taking majority control, and scheduled the end of Republican economic policies and broke the cycle of private sector prosperity.  Within 2 years the Senate's most leftward member was elevated to the White House and by the end of the Franken recount they had their 60th Senator and Obamacare.

Chief Justice Roberts affirmed Obamacare, Candy Crowley shot down Benghazi, and with the rape-abortion and Romney-47% fiascos, Dems held the Senate and Presidency assuring themselves that no one could repeal their agenda.

Now the tax rate hikes are firmly in place as is Obamacare's unprecendented control over the rest of people's lives.  Enter Janet Yellen's commitment to put monetary flooding and government intervention above dollar responsibility at the Fed - for years past the Obama's second term - and this is as good as it gets if you are a leftist.


Meanwhile, Republicans negotiate surrender and America contemplates what to do when work, savings and investment all become obsolete.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 11:14:56 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #411 on: October 12, 2013, 11:20:28 AM »

Despite this he will defend and "protect" the President.   Just wait till we have another 30 million people who will work harder than you and will work for less Tavis.

*****Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama

By Noel Sheppard | October 11, 2013 | 12:34
 
PBS's Tavis Smiley made a comment Thursday that every African-American as well as liberal media member should sit up and take notice.

Appearing on Fox News's Hannity, Smiley said, "The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: My last question to you. You often do these seminars with the state of black America. I've watched them on C-Span and different channels, right?

TAVIS SMILEY: Right.

HANNITY: Are black Americans better off five years into the Obama presidency?

SMILEY: Let me answer your question very forthrightly. No, they are not. The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category. On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.

But here's the other side. I respect the president. I will protect the president. And I will correct the president. He's right on this government shutdown. Republicans are thwarting the rule of law with the Constitution. If they let this debt go into default, they're trampling again on the Constitution.

Wow!

Now to be fair to Smiley, he has been hard on the president concerning how his policies are economically damaging the black community, but this is the first time I believe he's been this harsh on national television with such a large audience.

Sadly, he's right.

So why would this community re-elect someone doing so much damage to them economically?

Is it possible they're not aware of it because most liberal media members other than Smiley aren't reporting it?

Hmmm.
.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/11/tavis-smiley-black-people-will-have-lost-ground-every-single-economic#ixzz2hWcEICL1
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #412 on: October 14, 2013, 01:41:29 PM »

While the left is rejoicing at the choosing of leftist-Keynesian Janet Yellen to head the Fed, his second place discard, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, urges us to "focus on growth", recognize the "need to reduce regulatory barriers that hold back private infrastructure".  "We need to take advantage of the remarkable natural gas resources that have recently become available to the U.S. We need to...assure that public policy promotes entrepreneurship."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/10/14/Deal-or-No-Deal-US-Has-Its-Eye-Ball#sthash.ZmBpqm1a.dpuf

Imagine if moderate Democrats controlled the party and governed in some kind of bipartisan fashion with these points in mind!  Rest assured Summers is still a Democrat and sounded all those familiar themes as well.  Pres. Obama did not pick Yellen she is a woman.  He picked her because she is the most highly qualified far-leftist available for the job.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #413 on: October 16, 2013, 09:57:51 AM »

Ezra Klein, designated liberal hitter for the Wash Post, makes sense here.

"The Obama administration's top job isn't beating the Republicans. It's running the government well. On this -- the most important initiative they've launched -- they've run the government badly. They deserve all the criticism they're getting and more."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/14/five-thoughts-on-the-obamacare-disaster/

[Klein supports the program and also ripped Republicans in the piece.]
-----------------------------------

FYI to leftists, replacing millions and millions and millions of individual free choices in a free market all with one rigid government program designed by staffers isn't as easy as it looks.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #414 on: October 16, 2013, 10:25:27 AM »

Doug,

Just think of the jobs this creates.  The policy tinkerers, the lawyers, the academics, the associated "researchers", their staffs, the interest groups who insert themselves somewhere into this mess, the cottage industries, the consultants who thus attempt to interpret all this to the rest of us, the fodder it gives to pundits, and media types. 

Why, this has created a huge internal economy.   Never mind the rest of us are forced into it whether we like it or not.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #415 on: October 16, 2013, 12:10:04 PM »

Welcome young people to the consequences of leftism.  A Koz regular in his own words:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#

Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #416 on: October 22, 2013, 01:05:24 PM »

Niall Ferguson — Harvard professor (and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution fellow — launched a three part series, in the Huffington Post, entitled Krugtron the Invincible, Parts 1, 2 and 3 with a notable coda at Project Syndicate.  Ferguson succeeds in methodically humiliating New York Times columnist, celebrity blogger, and Nobel economic prize laureate Paul Krugman.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/10/21/much-bigger-than-the-shutdown-niall-fergusons-public-flogging-of-paul-krugman/

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/paul-krugman-euro_b_4060733.html

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/paul-krugman-housing-crisis_b_4067580.html

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/krugtron-the-invincible-p_b_4073956.html

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/on-the-perils-of-paul-krugman-by-niall-ferguson
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #417 on: October 30, 2013, 12:54:54 PM »

Top Democrat says those aren't 'cancellation notices,' they're 'transitions' into Obamacare  (Oh Good Grief!!)
By JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 29, 2013 AT 1:53 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/top-democrat-says-those-arent-cancellation-notices-theyre-transitions-into-obamacare/article/2538122

Insurance companies aren't sending out cancellation letters, they're helping people "transition" into Obamacare, according to a top Democrat.

"If [the companies] changed [the insurance plans] then they have to notify the people who have to have the opportunity to have another policy," said House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sander Levin, D-Mich.

In fact, according to Levin, the "so-called cancellation notices" merely "help people transition to a new policy."

Levin cited comments made by Florida Blue CEO Patrick Geraghty, the insurance company executive who originally floated the "transitioning" talking point on Sunday's Meet the Press.

"We're not cutting people, we're actually transitioning people," Geraghty told NBC's David Gregory. "What we've been doing is informing folks that their plan doesn't meet the test of the essential health benefits, therefore they have a choice of many options that we make available through the exchange."  (At double the cost!)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #418 on: November 05, 2013, 08:28:14 AM »

Meanwhile, while we dither with no de-fund and repeal strategy, here comes Obamacare into your living room:

Hollywood Receives Grant to Promote Obamacare on TV Shows
by Elizabeth Sheld 5 Nov 2013,
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/11/05/Hollywood-Receives-Grant-to-Promote-Obamacare-on-TV-Shows
 
The California Endowment, a foundation spending big bucks to promote Obamacare, has just delivered a $500,000 grant to TV writers and producers to sneak Obamacare promotions into their programs.  "The aim is to produce compelling prime-time narratives that encourage Americans to enroll, especially the young and healthy, Hispanics and other key demographic groups needed to make the overhaul a success."

In a rather backhanded insult, grant recipient Martin Kaplan of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center explained, "We know from research that when people watch entertainment television, even if they know it's fiction, they tend to believe that the factual stuff is actually factual." He continued on to say that "people learn from these shows."

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #419 on: November 05, 2013, 10:26:08 AM »

Fcuk!  That's rather Orwellian  cry angry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #420 on: November 07, 2013, 07:17:44 AM »



" the cost per job created by the program was $1.4 million"

A wealth transfer to the well-off  in pursuit of liberal objectives,  “cash for clunkers” merely caused people to purchase vehicles “slightly earlier than otherwise would have occurred.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-clunker-progressivism/2013/11/06/95faf0be-4676-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html

Clunker progressivism

By George F. Will, Washington Post

Barack Obama’s presidency has become a feast of failures whose proliferation protects their author from close scrutiny of any one of them. Now, however, we can revisit one of the first and see it as a harbinger of progressivism’s downward stumble to HealthCare.gov.

“Cash for Clunkers” was born with Obama’s administration as a component of his stimulus. Its fate is a window into both why the recovery has been extraordinarily weak and what happens when progressives’ clever plans collide with recalcitrant reality.

Consumers could trade in older vehicles and receive vouchers toward the purchase of a new, more fuel- efficient car. The vouchers were worth $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference in fuel economy between the trade-in and the new purchase. The program’s purposes were economic stimulation and environmental improvement.

Now a study by Ted Gayer and Emily Parker, published by the Brookings Institution, a mildly liberal think tank, concludes: “The $2.85 billion in vouchers provided by the program had a small and short-lived impact on gross domestic product, essentially shifting roughly a few billion dollars forward from the subsequent two quarters following the program.”

Most of the 677,842 sales were simply taken from the near future. That many older vehicles were traded in — and, as required by law, destroyed. Gayer and Parker accept as reasonable an estimate that the cost per job created by the program was $1.4 million. Although the vouchers did not come close to covering the cost of the new cars, voucher recipients seem not to have reduced their other consumption. This, say Gayer and Parker, suggests that participants in the program “were not liquidity constrained,” which is a delicate way of saying “there was no change in other consumption patterns,” which is a polite way of saying that “cash for clunkers” merely caused people to purchase vehicles “slightly earlier than otherwise would have occurred.”

Because the program was not means-tested, it had only a slight distributional effect of the sort progressives favor: Voucher recipients had lower incomes than others who bought new cars in 2009. Against this, however, must be weighed the fact that the mandated destruction of so many used vehicles probably caused prices for such vehicles to be higher than they otherwise would have been, meaning a redistribution of wealth adverse to low-income consumers.

As for environmental benefits from Cash for Clunkers, the reduction of gasoline consumption was small and “the cost per ton of carbon dioxide reduced by [the program] far exceeds the estimated social cost of carbon.” But it was — herewith very faint praise — more cost-effective than the subsidy for electric vehicles or the tax credit for ethanol.

Cash for Clunkers lasted 55 days and ended with confusion that was a preview of things to come. The New York Times explained in August 2009 the final surge of demand for clunker funds:

“Around the country, dealers had put off the laborious task of applying for the rebates . . . which requires entering the 17-character identification numbers of each vehicle to be scrapped, scanning images of proof of insurance and filling out other paperwork. The computer system was overloaded, according to the dealers. They said they would finish one page in the application, hit enter and nothing would happen. Eventually a message would appear notifying the dealer that the page had ‘timed out.’ Tom Frew, the business manager at Galpin Motors in Los Angeles, said that he needed 35 tries to register just one of the company’s 11 dealerships on the day that the program opened because of problems with the government Web site. On Friday, he spent an hour processing just one rebate application, he said.”

The recovery from the recession began in June 2009; 53 months later, vehicle sales still have not yet reached the pre-recession peak. Cash for Clunkers was prologue for the government’s vastly more ambitious plan to manage health care’s 18 percent of the economy.

The present, too, is prologue. There is heated debate about Common Core, whose advocates say it merely involves national academic targets and metrics for primary and secondary education. Critics say it will inevitably lead to a centrally designed and nationally imposed curriculum — practice dictated by targets and metrics. Common Core advocates say, in effect: “If you like your local curriculum, you can keep it. Period.”

If you believe this, your credulity is impervious to evidence. And you probably are a progressive.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #421 on: November 07, 2013, 10:22:55 AM »

Both of them were huge supporters of Obama.  Now he is safely re-elected and the focus is now in the direction of the next liar to be in chief, Hillary, they are safe to come out and mock HIM.

Where were they when it counted - before the election?

http://www.gossipcop.com/cmas-obamacare-video-carrie-underwood-brad-paisley-affordable-care-act-cma-awards-song/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #422 on: November 09, 2013, 09:16:55 AM »

As Doug points out "after the obligatory belittling of Republicans, and now Bamster is safely elected, and AHA is law, and Hillary now has opportunity to distance herself and is being set up for her coronation, and we get opening phrases such as, "to be fair", and "on balance" the left now sort of makes some sort of back ended "Obama has to take his lumps".

Importantly the Repubs will have to devise strategy to deal with Hillary in the future.  Not simply keep up the same barrage against Obama the same way.
Hillary's mob is already figuring ways to spin this to her favor.  The total difference between her and Obama is she will pretend to compromise, she will pretend to give on certain issues (era of big gov is over) and not be steadfast in your face double downing ideologue - even though she is.   The Republicans always thought they had the goods on Clinton and he most of the time could successfully spin it around take credit and walk away laughing. 

In any case back to Bamster's comrades in arms:

IT'S TIME FOR OBAMA TO TAKE HIS LUMPS
Cynthia Tucker
By Cynthia Tucker 9 hours ago
     
President Obama deserves forbearance on the bungled rollout of his health care initiative. After all, Republicans have dedicated themselves to sabotaging the law -- withholding funds required for a smooth inauguration, harassing the experts hired to explain the law to consumers, and even threatening the National Football League when Obama asked teams to advertise it to their audiences.

Millions losing health plans under Obamacare. Did president mislead? Christian Science Monitor
Obama Tells Americans Losing Coverage: 'I'm Sorry' ABC News
Republicans Allege Obama Deception on Health Plan Cancellation ABC News
Obama promises to "smooth out" health care Associated Press
Why some individuals are losing their health plans under ObamaCare The Week (RSS)

Still, Obama deserves all the blame for the deception that may be the biggest threat to his signature legislative achievement -- and his legacy. He must have known better when he told Americans repeatedly over the past five years that they could keep their insurance policies if they were happy with them. As countless policyholders have learned over the past few weeks, that's simply not true.

Early on, the president was careful in his descriptions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Speaking to a joint session of Congress in 2009, he said, "If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." The veracity squad at Politifact rated that statement "true."

But as Obamacare, as it is now widely known, picked up a dedicated and vociferous group of critics, the president grew careless. In countless speeches in the last three to four years, he dropped the nuances: "If you like the (health insurance) plan you have, you can keep it."

Just as more Americans were beginning to pay attention to a mandate that will go into effect in 2014, that flawed description became Obama's mantra. Now, as insurers send out cancellation notices, many consumers feel betrayed. And that includes some of Obama's most loyal supporters.

Writer Peter Richmond, who has purchased his health insurance through a small group affiliated with a local Chamber of Commerce in upstate New York, was stunned to learn recently that his insurer was dropping the group.

"(Obama) spoke so vehemently about our being able to keep our coverage. ... I feel betrayed for the first time by (this) president. ... I resent it a great deal," he said.

At a recent congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a liberal Democrat from Maryland, weighed in, contending that the cancellation notices were creating a "crisis of confidence" about Obamacare. She's right.

On balance, the cancellation notices are affecting a relatively small group of Americans -- those who don't get insurance from their employers but who purchase it in the individual market. They represent about 5 percent of the population. There are no exact figures on the number receiving cancellation notices, but experts have given estimates ranging from seven to 12 million people.

To be fair, many of them will be better off. Obamacare has virtually abolished their old "bare bones" policies, some of which didn't even pay for hospital stays. With subsidies, many consumers will be able to buy far superior health insurance policies for less money. Kaiser Family Foundation health care expert Larry Levitt told CBS News that "the winners will outnumber the losers."

Still, there are many customers who are experiencing genuine rate shock. They will be stuck paying a higher premium for health insurance policies they may not have wanted. That's bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that Obama misled them.

At the moment, Obamacare is a morass of confusion: dysfunctional websites, lies spread by its critics and even deceptive practices by some insurance companies. That's all the more reason that Americans need to be able to trust their president to tell them the truth about his health care overhaul -- even if some of that truth is unpleasant.

Obama needs to stand up and admit that he misled consumers about keeping their health care plans. He needs to take his lumps and promise to give the public straightforward and truthful answers.

If he keeps prevaricating, he will be doing as much damage to Obamacare as its harshest critics.

(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #423 on: November 11, 2013, 11:05:30 AM »

Long story, but he lied because we can't handle the truth:

"Seemingly the only path to change is telling voters what they want to hear."

"So accuse Obama of lying about health-care reform — but understand the simple underlying reality: we can’t handle the truth."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/behind-obama-lie-immaturity-article-1.1511360#ixzz2kMEEfsBJ


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #424 on: November 12, 2013, 10:44:18 AM »

They own the language and they keep needing to change it.  Steven Hayward of Powerline picks up on this point I have been trying to make.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/progressive-linguistics.php
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/24/10-phrases-progressives-need-to-ditch/

Progressive Linguistics  by Steven Hayward

Out in the further reaches of the critical theory left, the necessity of denying objective reality extends to language itself.  The deep-dish post-modernists declaim that language is just another subjective tool of the (white) power structure.  Whenever I hear such drivel, I usually ask not only why are we having this argument, but how are we having this argument?  (And if there is nothing but power in the world, I like to say: “Fine.  How many guns you lefties got?  Because I’ve got lots of them.”  That’s when the whole subject is usually changed or dropped.)

It should not surprise us, then, that “progressives” (the new term for “liberals” since modern liberals have discredited liberalism) are obsessed with language, and think that merely changing words will change minds. George Lakoff has made a lucrative cottage industry out of this.

The latest entry in the glossolalia of progressivism is this post about how we need to ditch “big business,” “entitlements,” “free market capitalism,” “government spending,” and other hardy perennials.  Some of the suggestions include:

     (1). Big Business: (Also referred to as: Corporate America; Multinationals; Corporate Interests) When we use any of these words, we automatically sound pie-in-the-sky liberal. People think, “what’s wrong with that?” After all, they’d like their own businesses to get “big” and have no negative associations with the words “corporate” or “multinational” — which actually sound kind of exciting and worldly. Instead, progressives can try: Unelected Government. This puts big, global, multinationals in their proper context as unelected entities with unprecedented powers, whose actions have immense impact on our lives, and which we are powerless to hold accountable.

    (2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, we progressives should try: Earned Benefits. . .

    (4). Government Spending: (Also referred to as: Taxes, Burden, and Inconvenient) Conservatives talk about “government spending” like it’s this awful thing, but the fact is, communities across America benefit from U.S. tax dollars, especially supposedly anti-government red states, which receive way more federal tax money than they contribute.  Instead, progressives should try: Investing in America. Because, that’s what our federal tax dollars do.

    (11). The Environment: When people talk about “the environment,” they often sound annoyingly self-righteous, as if lecturing people with dubious hygiene practices. Unfortunately, you can’t count on people to make environmentally friendly choices — especially when people are struggling financially and these choices cost significantly more. Instead, we progressives can try: Shared Resources.

    (12). Welfare: When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes. The majority of us need help at one time or another. Instead, progressives should try: Social Safety Net: When people think of a safety net, they’re more likely to think of a protection of last-resort, and one that they can instantly bounce out of like circus acrobats.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #425 on: November 17, 2013, 09:13:57 AM »

Does anyone from the left remember when then Vice President Dick Cheney formed an Energy Task Force that included industry experts to advise him on creating an energy plan for that administration?

There was an uproar from the left, one might recall, including a lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court trying to force the details of the meetings to be made public.

"This ruling means that for now, the public will remain in the dark about the Bush administration and energy industry executives' secret meetings about national energy policy," said David Bookbinder, Washington legal director for the Sierra Club..."
http://articles.philly.com/2004-06-25/news/25370001_1_task-force-david-bookbinder-energy-policy

What a difference a dozen years can make...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/business/after-meeting-health-insurers-question-proposals-workability.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&

A day after they were caught off guard by President Obama’s proposal to prevent cancellation of insurance policies for millions of Americans, top executives of some of the biggest insurance companies emerged from a meeting at the White House on Friday, expressing mixed feelings about whether the idea could work in every state.

They did not discuss in detail how the president’s goal might be achieved.

 The participants included executives of WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, Humana and Kaiser Permanente, as well as several nonprofit Blue Cross plans.

After the meeting, Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, said only that it had been “very productive.”

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #426 on: November 17, 2013, 09:35:28 AM »

Normally a reliable shill for the Democrats, now he is saying almost exactly what Charles Krauthammer is saying:

MARK SHIELDS: [You can keep your plan] -- wasn't a true statement. And you're driven to one of two conclusions. Either the president was almost -- almost negligently uncurious in not asking about what the answer was, or he made the choice to trade his considerable reputation and record of integrity for short-term political gain. That's why they had to come and that's why there was such consternation in the ranks.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you explain it, David, what happened, with the president acknowledging yesterday that he wasn't on top of it?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think it is politics. They knew that they -- getting this thing passed -- we were there -- it was hard. And so they were pulling out every political stop in the book. And a lot of those political stops have made it harder now. The first early one was, they were really late in issuing the regulations because they didn't want them to come out during the campaign so Romney could attack them.

As a result, the whole implementation got pushed back, and that's part of the reason the Web site is such a mess. And then they made this political calculation. Then they made the -- that they weren't going to tell you there will be losers here. And they made the political calculation there would be no deficit effects. They made a whole series of political calculations.

Shields didn’t think Obama made enough of a personal apology, like John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and it looks grim:

SHIELDS: It wasn't this is mine and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again. I mean, this has got to work.  Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration. If this goes down, if the Obama -- if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end -- I really mean it -- of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans -- that's what Democrats believe.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_11-15.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #427 on: November 17, 2013, 09:52:07 AM »

I don't know Seattle but it has similarities with Minneapolis where Democrats hold all the city council seats and the only opposition to them comes from the left.  What separates these two great cities from the fate of Detroit is probably only a matter of timing and circumstance.

Enter Kshama Sawant, just elected in a city-wide election to the council.  She was a leader of Occupy-Seattle, an avowed hater of capitalism.  Some Kshama Sawant quotes:

“Capitalists are criminals of our society”

“The Capitalist system itself…Is at the root of racism, hatred, and fear of black people, people of color, of poor people”

“We need to…put on trial capitalism itself”



So what does she do for a living?  She teaches 'Economics' at a public university.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexberezow/2013/11/11/why-is-seattle-socialist-kshama-sawant-allowed-to-teach-economics/

Let's get capitalism out of Seattle and see how the "black people, people of color, and poor people" do.  Good grief.  Maybe North Korea would be a good model.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #428 on: November 17, 2013, 10:00:26 AM »

I admire her honesty, rather than running as a democrat and then voting as a socialist as the rest of the dems do.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #429 on: November 17, 2013, 10:05:45 AM »

I admire her honesty, rather than running as a democrat and then voting as a socialist as the rest of the dems do.

That's right.  Instead of the deception of the Obama phenomenon, Hillary and the rest, let's put actual socialism on the ballot and take an up and down vote.  In Seattle this week, they did and it passed.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #430 on: December 01, 2013, 07:57:42 PM »

I am not sure this is suitable for people with brains:

http://www.alternet.org/visions/noam-chomsky-america-hates-its-poor rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #431 on: December 14, 2013, 03:33:07 PM »

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee calls for unemployment benefits for 'working men and women'

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Jackson-Lee-calls-for-unemployment-benefits-for-5062013.php?cmpid=htx

The Houston Democrat called upon her fellow Congress members to extend jobless benefits for people with jobs.

"Let us vote to provide for unemployment insurance for working men and women so that faces across America will not have the tear of desperation on their faces,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jer5VNkMKOU
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #432 on: December 17, 2013, 11:06:52 AM »

Shame of the Academy
The American Studies Association votes to boycott Israel.
Dec. 16, 2013 7:20 p.m. ET

The political corruption of the American academy is by now an old story, but every so often it reveals itself in a new and shocking way. The latest example comes from the professors of the American Studies Association, which on Monday announced that two-thirds of its members had voted in favor of boycotting Israel.

Jonathan Marks reports nearby on the association's internal politics, and readers won't be surprised at the bullying tactics employed to pass the boycott resolution. This is how the modern academic and media left operate.

Yet it's still worth pondering what must go through the mind of a professoriate, presumably dedicated to free political speech, that would choose to boycott the most democratic country in the Middle East. The country in which Arabs are treated far better and have far more rights than they do in most Arab lands. And the country that is America's most reliable ally. We can only imagine what these same professors must teach their students about the supposed crimes of America.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #433 on: January 09, 2014, 09:17:56 AM »

Has anyone read anything as nuts as this?  Christie should save his career by coming clean and being transparent and, get this emulate a Clinton! angry

He should change the subject, after coming clean, with a *sister soldier* moment.   No peep from this lib that both Clintons are the ROLE MODELS for how to cover up and get your corruption swept under the rug. 

No Fournier,  Christie should do the opposite of Clinton.  He should resign.  Instead he will follow the role model Clintons with clever lies, cover-ups and the rest.

Amazing how a few emails give the left credibility on this.  Yet when Obama, Rice, Clinton where all over the place lying about an event before the election which is even worse they just sweep it under the rug.  Simply not one email turned up.


*****Politics

How Chris Christie Can Save His Career

Transparency and accountability would transcend politics of today.
 Ron Fournier

January 9, 2014

Since 1992, when Bill Clinton moderated the Democratic Party's image by criticizing a hip-hop artist for her racially incendiary comments, politicians have searched for their "Sister Souljah moment" – when a candidate takes what appears to be a brave stand against extremes in their party.

Related Stories
Republican Leaders Assess Scandal Damage to Christie
Christie Says He Was 'Misled' on GW Bridge Closings
Christie Administration Implicated in a Very 'New Jersey' Scandal

In 2000, George W. Bush caricaturized conservative jurist Robert Bork in an attempt to appear more compassionate than the GOP brand.  That same year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain demonized the far right's "agents of intolerance." Eight years later, Sen. Barack Obama distanced himself from his own pastor, calling Jeremiah Wright's racially charged comments "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."

The sordid George Washington Bridge scandal offers Chris Christie two choices: Continue to deny, deflect and dissemble in a manner that is so common in the politics of today, and most recently exhibited by President Obama during a spate of controversies in 2013; or … pull a Super Sister Souljah.

A Super Sister Souljah goes beyond distancing one's self from extremes within your party. It is when a candidate to take what appears to be a brave stand against politics as practiced by both parties. It is what I had in mind Wednesday with this tweet:

Christie needs to come clean about his involvement in the bridge-lane closures, if any, and provide a more believable explanation of when he learned about the activity. Instead of hiding behind spokesmen, lawyers, press releases and smug assertions, the New Jersey governor needs to apologize, accept responsibility, and release every document and electronic communication about the closures. He should call for an independent investigation and order his advisers to comply.

Finally, he should do as I urged Obama to do last year: Clean house. Fire anybody who knew or should have known about the closures and replace them with people who will change the culture of his office. These charges are sticking to Christie because they fit so neatly into his office's reputation for bullying and arrogance. "He and his staff operate as divas," conservative blogger Erick Erickson wrote in a post titled, "The Politics of A-Holes."

The challenge for Christie is overcoming the damage to his reputation caused by his office's role in shutting down some access lanes to the George Washington Bridge, an act of political retribution that endangered lives. The scandal is an easy-to-understand antithesis to Christie's carefully cultivated image of a leader capable of transcending petty politics to serve the public good. Here's how New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial team assessed the situation:

Until yesterday, the official line from Christie's lieutenants at the Port Authority has been that this was all part of some secret "traffic study"; that they were simply curious to see what sort of mayhem would ensue if two of Fort Lee's three access lanes to the George Washington Bridge were cut off, suddenly and unannounced.

That's clearly a bogus story. But was the governor lying, too?

Christie originally said that after checking with his staff, he determined that no one from his office was involved in these lane closings. He scoffed at the very idea that it was political retribution against the Fort Lee mayor for refusing to endorse Christie's re-election, and joked that he had moved the traffic cones himself.

His attempts to laugh this off now appear to be dishonest, though we can't yet be sure that he personally knew about the doings of one of his top aides. Either way, though, Christie bears responsibility. If it turns out he did know, he is obviously lying and unfit for office — let alone a 2016 presidential run.

And even if he did not, his officials are liars. If Christie can't control them, how can we trust him as a potential future leader of our country?

Those are fair questions that go right to the issue of leadership, which John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate covers religiously. He wrote of Christie:

This is a political problem for Christie, but more importantly, it's a leadership test. Since the governor arrived on the national stage, he has given various ad hoc seminars on leadership and the qualities required for greatness. He talks a great deal about the topic and offers himself as an expert. Before he became partners with Barack Obama in responding to Hurricane Sandy, he gave a very astringent critique of the president's shortcoming. Recently Christie advised the president to apologize for his promise that if people wanted to keep their insurance they would be allowed to. "When you make a mistake, you should own up to it and apologize for it," he said.

Will Christie do that here? Christie now faces problems that echo ones this president has faced, most recently in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act: Does he apologize, and how fully? Does he take responsibility for the actions of his aides? Does he admit mistakes? Does he fire someone? Does he increase his famous bluster or does he step back from it? Christie is very good at giving advice on these matters. Now he can show rather than tell.

If he's lying, his career is over. But if Christie truly was not involved, he can show some accountability and transparency, which in this era of no-responsibility politics, would be a Super Sister Souljah moment.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #434 on: January 09, 2014, 11:36:42 AM »

Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd think this was a perfect example of media bias...
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #435 on: January 09, 2014, 02:14:13 PM »

From which side of the media?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/conservatives-on-chris-christie-diva-getting-what-he-deserves-20140109:

Republican media strategist Rick Wilson, who worked on Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign, argued that Christie "goes out of his way to be a dick to other Republicans" -- and will reap the payback if his fortunes start to head south.

 "You're going to see conservatives returning the favor he gave them over the last year. There's no love lost between Chris Christie and conservatives. I don't expect them to be in love with him, and he doesn't want their love," said Wilson.  "But if you want to win a GOP primary, you better find a way to get there."





Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd think this was a perfect example of media bias...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #436 on: January 09, 2014, 02:27:27 PM »

Good point.Christie got a pass when he smuggled guns to the Mexican cartels and got a pass when he used the IRS to target politics opponents and the MSM  gave him a pass on Beghazi, so it's about time the media stopped giving him a pass on this scandal. Right ?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #437 on: January 09, 2014, 02:35:59 PM »

Using a traffic study to inflict political payback is disgusting. Imagine if we had a president that used federal law enforcement officers to barricade the WWII monument from being visited by veterans and shut down national parks?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #438 on: January 09, 2014, 03:16:39 PM »

I know Christie is not really a conservative, but I'm not sure why "Operation Fat & Furious" (hat tip to Glenn Beck) is in this thread.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #439 on: January 10, 2014, 08:36:01 AM »

Bigdog,

Just one question.  Why is your response to any criticism of a left politician that the Republicans do it too?

As for Christie I admit if he is thrown out (he won't resign) I know my taxes will go even higher.   And half of NJ will be cheering for that.

Yet I won't accept a liar.  I won't accept anyone who abuses his/her power.   He is full of crap.  He knew.  Just like Obama knew.  Just like the Clintons knew.

This kind of behavior from right OR left has got to stop.

We need people who are honest.  First and formost.   For God's sake is this too much to ask?

Unfortunately McCain was partly right about campaign finance reform.  It just takes so much money to run a national campaign there seems no way to keep corruption out.

I am not sure his fix was the best answer but he is right in theory.  
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 08:41:43 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #440 on: January 10, 2014, 10:29:12 AM »

IMHO the McCain-Feingold law is an incumbency protection act and that this is not an accident.

The reason campaigns require so much money is that the government has its paws and claws into ever more of our lives-- thus there is more at stake.

It is not clear to me that Christie knew.  After his press conference yesterday if it comes to light that he did know, then he may well be done.  But if things are as he said (arrogance of power idiot employees in government-- how rare!) then he did the right thing. He promptly looked into it and fired those responsible and apologized to the people, including a visit to Fort Lee itself if I am not mistaken.

The left is looking to take down the strongest challenge at present for Hillary.  Where was the outrage on their side over Obama closing parks and monuments to make the 16% govt. shutdown as painful as possible?

Anyway, may I suggest that we take Operation Fat & Furious to the Politics thread?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #441 on: January 12, 2014, 11:26:56 AM »

Maureen Dowd - a lib - who I usually do not agree with. On this I mostly agree.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.  Legal diatribe arguments that split hairs help.  And of course the political consequences play a huge role in who is protected.  The left with Clinton for example and now the establishment DC right with Christie all coming to his defense.

****JAN. 11, 2014

 Maureen Dowd   

WASHINGTON — I HAVE learned two things covering politics.

One, first impressions are often right. John Edwards is slick. Hillary Clinton is expedient. W. was in over his head. Barack Obama is too much in his head. Chris Christie can be a bully.

Politicians are surrounded by spinners who work tirelessly to shape our perceptions of the characters of their bosses. Pols know how to polish scratches in their image with sin-and-redemption news conferences, TV confessionals and self-deprecating turns at hoary Washington press banquets. As Carter spokesman Jody Powell joked, if Hitler and Eva Braun came on stage at the Gridiron Dinner and mocked themselves in a song-and-dance routine, Washington chatterers would say, “Oh, they’re not so bad.”

After being showered with spin, you say to yourself, maybe that first impression was wrong. But often it isn’t.

Christie’s two-hour “I am not a bully” news conference was operatic about an act of malice so petty it did not merit being called “authentic Jersey corruption,” as New Jersey native Jon Stewart said, adding that it was unworthy of a state with a severed horse head on its flag.

If you’re going to wage a vendetta, at least make it a well-thought-out one. How can Christie & Co. run a national campaign when they can’t even aim straight? How moronic to think the mayor of Fort Lee would get blamed for problems on a bridge that everyone knows is controlled by the Port Authority. If you want to be malicious, it would be so easy to put a project close to the mayor’s heart on hold for a few months or redirect 60 state snowplows the night before a storm.

The governor groveled to New Jersey residents after his aides so gleefully burned them (even joking about children being late for the first day of school because of the orchestrated gridlock on the George Washington Bridge).

After zapping Obama for being so clueless that he couldn’t find “the light switch of leadership” in a dark room, Christie is trying to salvage his once blazing career by claiming he was in a dark room, clueless to the bogus traffic study masking a revenge plan that top aides were executing in plain sight.

The epic news conference felt like a scene out of the governor’s favorite movie, “The Godfather”: Christie offering his tremulous, grandiose, self-pitying public apologia while in cross-cut scenes, his henchmen were getting rid of those who threatened his operation.

Calling his deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly “stupid” and “deceitful,” he threw her off the bridge, without talking to her himself or, as Niall O’Dowd slyly wrote in IrishCentral.com, even extending the courtesy of the old Irish wedding night admonition: “Brace yourself, Bridget.”

He also disappeared his two-time campaign manager, Bill Stepien. His cronies at the Port Authority, Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, fell on their swords last month.

Christie took a line straight out of the Robert DeNiro handbook, lamenting: “I am heartbroken that someone who I permitted to be in that circle of trust for the last five years betrayed my trust.”

Yet we know workplaces are chameleon-like. I once had a publisher who loved the Audubon Society, so we ran a lot of bird stories. I had another boss who wore suspenders, so guys in the office started wearing suspenders.
 
Shades of Watergate: Since they were headed toward a landslide, you’d think the Christie crew would have been in a more benevolent mood. But given the governor’s past flashes of vindictive behavior, this was probably a wink-wink, nod-nod deal. Question: Who will rid me of this meddlesome mayor? Answer: The “little Serbian” has been dealt with.

The second thing I’ve learned from covering politics is that we can debate ad nauseam whether Christie was telling the truth, shading it or bluffing. But we can’t gauge that from his impressive, marathon Trenton performance art.

No matter how jaded we feel in the news business, we are still suckers for the big lie. It’s tough to wrap your head around a stunning level of duplicity.

I learned this lesson the hard way covering Paul Tsongas’s presidential surge in 1992. When The Times’s Dr. Larry Altman came on the campaign trail to interview Tsongas, he was skeptical about the candidate’s claim that his lymphoma had not recurred. I told Altman it was impossible for me to believe that Tsongas, who prided himself on his honesty and who was so straightforward he was mocked as “Saint Paul” by Clinton aides, could lie about that — especially given the profound political consequences.
Dr. Altman was right, as Tsongas later admitted. The candidate and his doctors at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston repeatedly said he was cancer-free when he was not.

A cascade of subsequent outraged denials about transgressive behavior delivered with bravado and finger wagging, from Gary Hart to Bill Clinton to John Edwards to Anthony Weiner, has persuaded me that politicians — who are narcissists and, in essence, actors stuck in the same role — can persuasively tell the big lie if they believe their futures are on the line.

The Christie saga is still unraveling. Maybe he was a dupe in the dark. Maybe the man in the fleece jacket is fleecing us. Let’s just say, I’m not yet permitting him in my circle of trust.
 
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 12, 2014, on page SR11 of the New York edition with the headline: Thunder Road. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe**** 
 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #442 on: January 12, 2014, 12:41:41 PM »

Working from memory here:

Sen/Gov/SecTreasury John Conally of Texas ran for president in 1980.  He was asked about whether he lied at his trial about corruption (something having to do with milk???) and told this story:

"I bet most of you don't know that George Washington was a Texan.  One days he cut down a mesquite bush.  His father asked who had cut down the tree.  "I cannot tell a lie. I did." said little George.

"Well don't bother running for office until you can" his daddy replied.

In plain sight Obama did a plethora more of petty and fiendish misdeeds during the 1/6th government reduction (a.k.a. the Shutdown) that he chose to create (and was blamed on the Reps).  Nary a peep from the Pravdas.

This is all Alice-in-Wonderland.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #443 on: January 12, 2014, 01:03:12 PM »

Crafty,

This is the most cynical post I've seen you make in all the years "boarding" with you.

If that is the case then why do we care about Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious?

If we cannot get honesty from our leaders than they can do anything and later deny and cover it up.

We cannot accept dishonesty.  Christie has got to go.  Of course he is denying he knew.  That is his last play here.  He had no problem with the bridge thing until emails were exposed.    To think he wasn't a least bit curious as to why the GWB was blocked off to Ft Lee because of a "traffic study"?  He ignored all the complaints prior.   Oh yes he takes "full responsibility". 

You can't really mean this.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31241


« Reply #444 on: January 12, 2014, 05:07:26 PM »

Sorry for my lack of clarity.

I'm not advocating this attitude, I'm describing it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #445 on: January 20, 2014, 05:27:38 PM »

How much does Paul Krugman make, and what does he contribute, seriously.

I made the mistake of clicking on his column today.  Don't do that.  Let's have government decide how hard people work and how much they make.  Don't trust free people making free choices.

If David Ortiz and his batboy come to the ballpark at the same time, leave at the same time, why not the same pay? 

Link: NYTimes/unsubscribe

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #446 on: January 20, 2014, 05:46:51 PM »

One website says Kruggy has a personal wealth of 2.5 million.

I'm sure he's given it all away to the poor, right?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #447 on: January 21, 2014, 08:41:16 AM »

Divided Democrats Put Obama in a State of the Union Squeeze
Liberals want the president to tackle income inequality; moderates want him to focus on economic growth.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/state-of-the-union-2014/divided-democrats-put-obama-in-a-state-of-the-union-squeeze-20140120
----------------------------

Of course pursuing policies that 'tackle income inequality' is the exact opposite of pursuing policies that focus on positive economic growth.

And 'moderate Dem' is a term not seen since the rising of Pelosi-Reid-Obama.  Moderates who "want him [Obama] to focus on economic growth" sound like former Dems and likely 2014/2016 Republican voters.

News Flash:  The Democratic party is not the party of economic growth and opportunity.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5944


« Reply #448 on: January 21, 2014, 08:47:22 AM »

Thomas Sowell, pointing out truths with clarity:

Fact-Free Liberals

By Thomas Sowell - January 21, 2014

Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.

President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality?

That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term "socialism." Those communities all collapsed.

It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality.

But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left -- which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study -- are not likely to get much attention.

The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.

Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work.

But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work.

Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things -- and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors.

Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous "top one percent" have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country.

But check out a Treasury Department study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005." It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall -- repeat, fall -- by 26 percent by 2005.

What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.

This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up.

Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.

All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.

For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.

But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.

Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #449 on: January 22, 2014, 10:06:15 AM »

GM says:

"One website says Kruggy has a personal wealth of 2.5 million.

I'm sure he's given it all away to the poor, right?"

I have been an advocate of the left's wishes on this board a number of times.   All wealthy liberals should be taxed at 90% and their wealth handed over to big government welfare programs.  The rest of us can be left alone.

Doug,

Sowell does it again.  I am sick and tired of hearing how women do't get paid the same as men.  I can tell you in health care that is simply bogus.   Women may make less than men overall but that is by THEIR design.  There is NO conspiracies going on to KEEP WOMEN DOWN.  They get reimbursed the same from Medicare, Medicaid, insurers the same as the rest of us.  They may make less because THEY choose jobs that have easier hours.   To some extant this is so they can take time off for pregnancy leave with generous guarantees their job is secure and waiting for them when they choose to come back.

They also do not choose high paying surgical careers as much.  These tend to have long hours and be more demanding.  Yes, surgeons historically had been an all boys club, no doubt, but this is not the case now.  Women have quite good.  They have it both ways.  Nonetheless we will be hearing the none stop propaganda machine from the left MSM setting up for Hillary.  It is all about getting her elected now.   
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!