- Money? No, he has doubled or tripled the debt (not the deficit, but the debt).
- American lives? No, he missed all warning and signs of 9/11, then launched us into a war that is now called a debacle by the U.S. National Defence University.
- Border security? No, he stubbornly resists all efforts to enhance security and does only token enforcement of existing laws against the employment of illegals. "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" has become code for cheap labor and amnesty for 12 million (minimum) illegals already here, and he supports that. (Of course the Democrats are even worse, but it's not their turn right now.)
- Jobs? Nope.
- The economy? No, by instructing regulators to sit on their hands during the biggest credit, housing and fraudulent securities bubble ever seen, he has left us in an unbelievable mess. (Mr. Bill Clinton shares much of the blame for this, for signing on to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and other deregulatory actions.)
- Security? No, the Iraq war will be used for years, in the recruitment and propaganda of our enemies as an example of American imperialism. And it will also serve as a sink-hole consuming the lives and limbs of our best, as well as untold money and other resources that could have been used more wisely.
Subscribe To Liberative
Posts
Friday, April 25, 2008
What is it that is conserved by the "Conservative" Bush?
If Bush is a conservative, then I have to assume that being conservative is about letting the world slip through your fingers. What has he conserved?
22 comments:
> U.S. National Defence University.
If it's an American University, why does it use the Brit spelling for "defense"?
If it's not an American University... why the hell would any American care?
Just wondering. We've got enough liberal twits in the USA with no principles except "win at all costs against the eeeeevil conservatives" to bother listening to liberal twits from other countries.
As far as the claim of it as a "debacle", well, let's just let this speak for it:
Iraqis no longer ask, 'Are you Sunni or Shiite?'
For years, when she approached Iraqi Army checkpoints and produced an identification card for soldiers to study for clues about her sect, Nadia Hashim used a simple formula to signal the mostly Shiite Muslim force that she, too, is a Shiite.
"I am one of you," she'd say.
The soldiers would harass Sunnis, but they'd simply wave Hashim through.
Now her pat line gets her an official reproach.
When a relative used it recently, a soldier admonished the driver and the passengers. "'We are Iraqis, and you shouldn't say such a thing,' " recalled Hashim.
The 35-year-old mother of three said that for her and countless other Iraqis, the fact that soldiers are now using nationalist rather than sectarian language is a significant change. Being a Shiite is no longer key to her survival.
With violence subsiding throughout Baghdad, residents said that sectarianism is becoming less pervasive. They're starting to think of themselves as Iraqis, not as hostages to hyphenated, sectarian identities.
Hmmm. You might still be able to argue about the reasons for going to war, but the current results, at this point in time, hardly qualifies as anything resembling a "debacle" and still claim to be a rational actor in the universe. Quoting such a source as "reputable" -- i.e., worthy of quoting a all -- challenges your stance as a rational actor, too.
This, by the way, is exactly the kind of thing Obama should be changing his stance on... it's clear and self-evident that to abandon the Iraqis when things are going so well is a blatantly irrational stance... So of course it's just about the only stance he's NOT waffling on. "Screw 'em!!" sez Barack.
> If Bush is a conservative
OK, I'm not a conservative, I'm a small-l libertarian, and even *I* know that Bush is heavily derided for not being true to conservative principles, as are many of the current Republicans in Congress. I'd suspect that, far more than issues with the war, are the chief reasons for why the GOP suffered substantial reversals in the 2006 elections, and their failure to stand up against the policies of the Dems will, if anything, continue to erode their existing base in 2008.
And if you doubt that, go look through the archives of columnist commentary over on Townhall.com and notice how many include complaints about Bush being far too soft.
But, point by point (with the "Iraq debacle" already covered):
-he has doubled or tripled the debt
No argument. This is not entirely the PotUS, it's much more the handling of Congress, but he hasn't stood against such things, either.
-American lives? No, he missed all warning and signs of 9/11
OK, this borders on being a flat out lie -- If HE "missed all the warning signs", then what about Clinton, who had YEARS of buildup and still failed to do jack to prevent or stop those who would did it? Bush was in office all of, what, 8 months? With the economy tanking, thanks, once more, to Clinton requiring the focus of attention? You've got plausible deniability, but I think you were probably lying and knew it.
-Border security? No, he stubbornly resists all efforts to enhance security
And you figure this has not been a serious point of irritation with just about EVERY GOP candidate in this election cycle? I assure you, once more, that, had you actually had ANY news sources which offered even a middle-of-the-road PoV, you would have heard plenty of complaints about Bush's as well as the rest of the GOP's candidates -- failures in this department.
> Jobs? Nope
This, shows complete ignorance of how economies work, as well as a failure to look at more than just raw numbers. If our population wasn't booming, then the jobs market would be tight, not loose. Average Unemployment for the entire Bush presidency has been LOWER than that for Clinton's. And that is despite all those jobs being "shipped oversead" (can ya point me to the container ship for those, btw?). What is actually happening is that, as the world develops a true global economy, nations are specializing. Do you hire a lawn service? Does your company hire a janitorial service? You have an auto mechanic, a plumber, an electrician?
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING, SHIPPING THOSE JOBS ACROSS TOWN?
Why the heck aren't YOU doing them instead? Oh, wait, that doesn't make a lot of sense. And now we start to see how a national economy might behave, too. For a more extensive thought development on this, try:
The Nation That Lost Its Jobs, But Got Them Back.
> The economy? No, by instructing regulators to sit on their hands during the biggest credit, housing and fraudulent securities bubble ever seen
This has next to nothing to do with failures of regulation activities, but with two things:
1)failures of the Federal Reserve System, by creating lots of cheap credit, which WILL find a place. The FRS is a quasi-autonomous body, whose people do NOT directly report to, nor take orders from, the PotUS. And the guy in charge of that wasn't appointed by Bush.
2) As you mention, things like Glass-Steagle, which pushed companies to grant loans regardless of effective business practices that had been developed over decades. That's not a failure of regulators, that's Congress sticking their fingers in and telling business people how to do their business.
And if you actually looked at the real numbers of it, most of the problems are limited to about 3 main areas (Cali, Fl, and one other state). Defaults are also still far below anything resembling a serious level, despite all the media hysteria. The only thing that will screw it up even more is a bailout.
Some more info here.
Also here.
And here.
Like housing prices, the whole thing has been inflated far beyond its worth.
Dr. Perry, btw, has his Ph.D in Economics, so you might grant him a little more credit than a newspaper reporter for knowing what he is talking about...
> Security? No, the Iraq war will be used for years, in the recruitment and propaganda of our enemies as an example of American imperialism.
This is so ignorant and stupid, it's pitiful. There are surely people out there who will be stupid enough to buy this sales pitch, but it fails as a "significant recruiting tool" on several major accounts:
1) People tend to back winners. As long as the USA is perceived to be winners, it massively harms recruiting efforts. It is clear from even the writings of bin Laden that the weaselly response of Clinton in Rwanda had him believing that the USA was a "paper tiger" who would fold at the first sign of resistance. Luckily, this was not so. By kicking ass, there are few governments which will openly support such activities (and yes, that's a broad statement. This thing is too long as it is to add the number of codicils onto it I would prefer).
2) The fanaticals on the other side have shown themselves to be lunatics by the fact that, when they could not attack us successfully, they turned and attacked the Iraqis. This managed to put THEM on the run as the Iraqis started to side with the USA and turn them in left and right. In case you did not happen to notice, thanks to the oh-so-convenient fact that it's "not news", the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq just dropped to the lowest levels since the war began. Does that SOUND like recruiting for 'the cause' is successful?
3) The whole notion of this as "U.S. Imperialism" is bereft of reason of any kind, and only a fool applies it. The main reason for your FIRST bullet point is the amount of money we've been spending in Iraq, not a small portion of which is being used to re-build the infrastructure of Iraq. I got a clue for you -- money flowing out is not how "imperialism" works. Pointing at the USA in Iraq and thinking that anyone is going to look at that and say "Look at all that money the USA spent in Iraq rebuilding it! Those imperialist bastards!"
Now, if it WERE a "War for Oil", then it's quite clear what we would have done -- we would have gone in, taken Saddam down, caught him and his lieutenants, and then put in our own strongman. Total time, maybe six months. Total expense, 10% of expenditures, probably regained from oil leases.
Sorta like what every nation on earth did in every case until the 80s, excluding the USA on some occasions... and pretty much what we've done every time since then...
The assumption that anyone who isn't a congenital idiot is going to fall for that claim assumes a lot of really, really stupid people, all of whom associate with really, really stupid people. Because if you've got A-1 working brain cell -- or even know anyone with A-1 working brain cell, you're going to have your foolishness exposed.
So to believe that the events in Iraq will be an effective recruiting tool anywhere except perhaps Palestine (and they have their ire pointed in another direction) is to either BE one of those really, really stupid people with stupid associates, or assumes that your opinion of EVERYONE involved (i.e., all of Islam) is such...
So which are you, as well as your associates, for suggesting this seriously -- Stupid or Racist?
=============
In summary, your position is inherently faulty, because you've set up a strawman argument -- you appear to imagine that you're pointing out that "Bush==Conservative" means conservatives are hypocritical, while utterly and completely ignoring that most conservatives are distinctly dissatisfied with a large percentage of his (as well as much of the rest of the GOP's) positions, votes, and expressions, many of which are seriously at odds with Conservative principles.
They have tended to get voted for not because they are conservative, but because the opposition party candidates are such complete and utter mouth-frothing moonbats that no rational conservative can justify voting for them as a protest vote. And even that reasoning broke down notably during the 2006 election.
Sorry that a rational person has turned up and fisked your silly polemic to death.
> U.S. National Defence University.
If it's an American University, why does it use the Brit spelling for "defense"?
The British spelling of was my doing; it is indeed the National Defense University and the report linked to is now at here . (No doubt my inclination for British spellings is further evidence that I am a satan-worshipping socialist. By the way, if that is your idea of fisking, I'm not imopressed.) Additional reporting and summarization of the articale is here And it does say that Iraq is a "debacle", while also calling it a "must-win".
As for your "Morning in Iraq" quote, from lower down the same article:
Most Iraqis, however, aren't convinced that the drop in sectarian violence, now at its lowest levels since March 2004, according to the U.S. military, will last.
Instead, they think that the violence will continue to swing like a pendulum along with the security situation. Indeed, periodic spurts of violence remind residents that Sunni and Shiite extremist groups are still warring.
And I'll take my sources - National Defense University - over yours - McClatchy somwething or other.
On your final point I agree that leaving the Iraquis without soemhow stabilizing their situation would be horrible. And on this I think Obama would find himself constrained by the need to avoid obvious genocides and Al Quaeda takeovere upon our leaving (which is to say, he's pandering).
> If Bush is a conservative
OK, I'm not a conservative, I'm a small-l libertarian, and even *I* know that Bush is heavily derided for not being true to conservative principles, as are many of the current Republicans in Congress.
Well, he's not a liberal and conservatives of many stripes vote for and defend him. If it makes you happier, pretend that I did not generalize about conservatives and only wrote about Bush's claim to conservatism. I can correct the post to say such if I am convinced it will improve it.
-American lives? No, he missed all warning and signs of 9/11
OK, this borders on being a flat out lie -- If HE "missed all the warning signs", then what about Clinton, who had YEARS of buildup and still failed to do jack to prevent or stop those who would did it?
I think this covers it fairly well. Clinton authorized the killing of bin Laden and tried to to do so (the Right derided it as "monica missiles" since it was more important to find out if Clinton lied about a blow-job tham to defend the country). Richard Clarke briefed the Bushies on 1//25/2001 on the risk posed by Al-Quaeda, but Bush couldn't be bothered.
-Border security? No, he stubbornly resists all efforts to enhance security
And you figure this has not been a serious point of irritation with just about EVERY GOP candidate in this election cycle?
The one who WON the nomination was the one most in favor of amnesty. So are Republicans in general are not conservatives either?
> Jobs? Nope
This, shows complete ignorance of how economies work, as well as a failure to look at more than just raw numbers. If our population wasn't booming, then the jobs market would be tight, not loose. Average Unemployment for the entire Bush presidency has been LOWER than that for Clinton's.
Well, maybe, re averages. But I hope you're looking at the revised unemployment numbers and not the initial releases - the intial release numbers have "birth/death" adjustments that are ludicrous.
But consider this: it was all built on funny money. The housing and commercial rreal estate industries, and the financial industies that acoompanied them, were fueled by trillions of dollars of money that was loaned into existence by an amazing combination of corruption, greed and stupidity. When the funny-money went awaym so did the "recovery". The Bush recovery is a myth - it wss a credit bubble that we will be paying for for years.
1)failures of the Federal Reserve System, by creating lots of cheap credit, which WILL find a place. The FRS is a quasi-autonomous body, whose people do NOT directly report to, nor take orders from, the PotUS. And the guy in charge of that wasn't appointed by Bush.
The FRS is only part of the problem as they reaised rates back to normal in 2004-2005 and the bubble continued. And the head of the FRS is Ben Bernankem who was appointed by Bush in 2005. And the worst damage was done 2005 and after. FRB outrages continue, with the FRB having become a shit-magnet for crappy ABS used as "collateral" for "loans" to the worst perps of this outrage.
2) As you mention, things like Glass-Steagle, which pushed companies to grant loans regardless of effective business practices that had been developed over decades. That's not a failure of regulators, that's Congress sticking their fingers in and telling business people how to do their business.
You are utterly wrong abiut what Glass-Steagel was. See here for an excellent summary. The only thing that even looks like what you are talkiing about is the CRA, and that does not in any way explain 100,000s of McMansions rotting away the Inland Empire, as just one example.
I will continue fisking your last post later. Have to go to work now.
Continuing with your second post:
And if you actually looked at the real numbers of it, most of the problems are limited to about 3 main areas (Cali, Fl, and one other state).
Go to MacroMarkets and play with the graphing too. You'll find that Las Veegas, Chicago, Minneapolis and numerous other metropolitan areas have rsien at least 40% during the bubble - and all of that is coming back, at least in real terms. In fact look at the graphs I've posted at my post about housing. The first shows that houses are unaffordable with current non-funny-money financing until the prices drop. The 2nd and 3rd show that housing is undesirable as an investment or as compared to rental until prices drop.
Check out the Economics Blogs I link to on my blog. They've been miles ahead of MSM every step of the way.
Your first Perry link is just wrong. Alt-As are on the same trajectgory as sub-prime, just a little later start. And Alt-As are bigger loans.
Your second Perry link is wrong because another 20% of the originations were Alt-A and Option ARMs and these will be more disastrous, as noted in my previous link to my blog plus any of the econ blogs I link to.
Your 3rd Perry link is wrong because once agin it does not include alt-A and Option ARM. $1 Trillion has become the new floor, with many analysts moving as high as 2 Trillion when the different kinds of mortgages and other crappy debt ar4e included. And the other kinds of debt come into play because we are in an adverse feedback loop. See Nouriel Roubini here for example, a man with prety good creds who has been ahead of just about everyone on this. And the number - 1 trillion or 2 trillion - is magnified because much of it will be Bank capital, and, due to the fractional lending system, will mean 10 to 20 trillion of lending that cannot occur.
Commercial bankruptcies for the 2nd quarter are up 45% year over year. Businesses are closing or cutting back every where. the self-reinforcing adverse feedback loops are everywhere. These are not good times.
The only thing that will screw it up even more is a bailout.
AMEN to that! Especially the ones that havce already occured, where the pigmen keep the profits while the government socializes the losses.
1) People tend to back winners. As long as the USA is perceived to be winners, it massively harms recruiting efforts.
But we were *always* winning militarily - that didn't help for a long time - why now? Could it be the fact that we "encouraged" the Anbar Awakening by paying the participants $300/mo each? If so, are we really winning hearts and minds or just pocketbooks?
By kicking ass, there are few governments which will openly support such activities. This is sort of reasonable, but you need a record for kicking the right asses. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (or Al Qaeda, prior to us going in and clearing the way).
This managed to put THEM on the run as the Iraqis started to side with the USA and turn them in left and right.
$300/mo.
Now, if it WERE a "War for Oil", then it's quite clear what we would have done
Yes. We would have protected the Oil Ministry while letting the rest of the country go to hel. Oh wait, that IS what we did.
The main reason for your FIRST bullet point is the amount of money we've been spending in Iraq, not a small portion of which is being used to re-build the infrastructure of Iraq. I will grant you we are spending money there. But we aare still arguably an occupying force. And if we stay longer than the Irqi go'vt wants, then we inarguably will be an occupying force.
So which are you, as well as your associates, for suggesting this seriously -- Stupid or Racist?
What is your fucking problem? Where does all this fury and hatred copme from? Why can't you act like a civil human being?
In summary, your position is inherently faulty, because you've set up a strawman argument -- you appear to imagine that you're pointing out that "Bush==Conservative" means conservatives are hypocritical, while utterly and completely ignoring that most conservatives are distinctly dissatisfied with a large percentage of his (as well as much of the rest of the GOP's) positions, votes, and expressions, many of which are seriously at odds with Conservative principles.
The very first line in my post:
If Bush is a conservative, then I have to assume that being conservative is about letting the world slip through your fingers. What has he conserved?
Oh, lookie here, I actually said IF.
If you can point me to the "Official, No Shit, Really, Conservative's Doctrine and Handbook", I'd be much obliged. But Bush says he's a conservative.
Sorry that a rational person has turned up and fisked your silly polemic to death.
Pbbbbbbbbt!
OBH,
I have modified thew title of the post to make it more clear that it is about Bush's shortcomings (which the text of the post as written actually said, BTW).
> ... (snip)... And I'll take my sources - National Defense University - over yours - McClatchy somwething or other.
LOL, your typing needs work, too. :oP
One need not be satan worshipping to be a socialist, just abysmally stupid. The record of socialism and communism in the last 100 years of its implementation has been so abysmally pitiful -- both economically and in humanitarian terms, that one must be singularly stupid to continue to adhere to it.
I don't mean that to be insulting, though I grasp it is -- I just cannot grasp how anyone can't fail to figure that out given 100 million+ dead, one major war and a number of minor wars, with not one single shining positive example, and be any other way. The closest one can come is Sweden, which is such an economic paradise that emigration statistics alone show what a wonderful place it is, to say nothing of the relentlessly falling standard of living for decades, now.
I'll take the word of Iraqis on the ground and on the spot over the word of analysts in ivory towers a lot more.
And I, too, am sure there will be swings. I also think that the difference between Saddam Iraq and post-Saddam Iraq is, though it may be bad at time, the one thing there never was in Saddam's Iraq was the hope that it might be better.
You know, "Hope" and "Change".
More critically, you blow off, possibly for failing to know better, just how CRITICALLY IMPORTANT the key subject of the piece is -- "Iraqis no longer ask, 'Are you Sunni or Shiite?'"
Instead you title it:
As for your "Morning in Iraq" quote
which is hardly shorter. Why did you avoid the actual title, or at least an abbreviation of it, bob?
If you actually knew anyone who was Islamic, you would know the significance of this. It's much more important, to a more fanatical religion like Islam, than Protestant-v-Catholic is nowadays. It's not just about descrimination, it's something to war over. Not the "We'll blow them up on alternate Tuesdays, they'll blow some of us up on alternate Thursdays" of Ireland, but a crips-vs-bloods kind of difference. You wind up in the wrong place, you'll be dead. No reason other than where you are. No argument accepted.
That there is ANYTHING of this in Iraq shows what kind of "debacle" it is: *zero*.
If nothing else, Iraqis now have something positive to compare to, and to aim for -- they can say "It was like 'x' only a couple years ago -- where did we go wrong?"
And any organization which uses the word "debacle" at this point shows the kind of incipient bias that makes their opinions not only unreliable but utterly worthless.
> while also calling it a "must-win".
Right. So why is The Left doing such a fantastic job of selling "must lose" to everyone?
I guarantee you this -- if we pull out prematurely we will lose all credibility across the planet, because we will have shown that we no longer have the ability to take even the trivial losses of this war without shuddering. And there is not an enemy anywhere who won't sneer at us for being so chickenshit.
The Left should be ashamed of itself.
We had a reason to go into Iraq which served our own purposes (in addition to humanitarian ones, which also justify, though they cannot do so on their own).
(Lest you attempt to argue that, Clinton had far less national-interest justification for going into Serbia/Bosnia or Rwanda... and we STILL have troops in Bosnia)
In doing so, we destabilized the situation there. We could have done what nations have always done, which is put in our own pet strongman and left.
Fast, cheap, easy.
Instead we have stayed to help clean up the mess, and acted like a responsible nation should. And it's downright shameful that the Left has fought tooth and nail against doing that. You want to raise hell about going in after the fact, do so, but act like rational adults at least with regard to a fait-accompli and its handling.
> Well, he's not a liberal and conservatives of many stripes vote for and defend him.
For which reason I offered.
He's far more middle of the road, and many of his policies are, if not "left leaning" are far more centrist than makes most real conservatives happy. Probably about the only thing most conservatives WILL agree with him on is the general notion of taking terrorism on elsewhere, where it gets generated, not HERE, and treating it as a partly military problem instead of a "police matter" which is blatantly stupid.
> I think this covers it fairly well. Clinton authorized the killing of bin Laden and tried to to do so (the Right derided it as "monica missiles" since it was more important to find out if Clinton lied about a blow-job tham to defend the country)
Yes,
a) The timing had NOTHING TO DO with the impeachment. None whatsoever. Nada. And while you're at it, Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!! Go ahead, now pull the other one...
b) The admin dithered and hawed over sending those missles in and, as a result, MISSED bin Laden -- which multi-day delay was probably tied specifically to the desire to time it to provide "alternative news" at a key moment in the impeachment proceedings. Yes, they knew where bin Laden was for days and did not send missles in -- why?
c) Sorry, the PotUS -- indisputably LYING UNDER OATH seems to be less important to most Dems than Bush's supposed lies (despite the fact that there is no evidence he lied) in a speech for which only one comment of which even *could* constitute a lie.
Clinton lied. No question.
Bush was possibly *mistaken*. ...but there's question about even that.
Slight difference.
Yet somehow there's no end to the repetition of the outright lie that "Bush lied". And no, "presenting things in the light you want them to be seen in" does not inherently constitute lying. For that, one must utter a known falsehood, a claim for which there is virtually no evidence to support. Clinton OTOH, unquestionably did utter a falsehood, and did so under conditions in which you or I would get jail time... that is unless you actually think the word "No" has a variable value excepting, of course, when a woman says it about wanting sex... Which leads one to presume Clinton had problems with the meaning of the word "No" anyway, considering Paula Jones.
> But consider this: it was all built on funny money.
No shit. You figure this is different from what "Clinton did" to create the IT boom in the 1990s? Again, that's all part of the FRS. While the PotUS can express an intention to the FRS, they don't have to follow his lead.
And "funny money" : It's ALL "funny money" nowadays. I will make the personal argument that the actual wealth production of the country is vastly underestimated as a result of serious problems understanding that IP is not the same as Real Property --- they are both "property" in the same sense that ice and steam are both water. There's a phase change involved which no one I've seen yet has a grasp of... so the amount of actual "funny money" is, I suspect, vastly overestimated.
If we actually demanded recompense for all the international piracy which occurs from many other nations of our IP, I suspect the trade deficit would not only lessen but disappear to be replaced with a surplus... as might well the actual yearly addition to the national debt.
> The Bush recovery is a myth
Horse pucky. The only problem with cheap credit is that it creates a number of bad investments along with the good investments -- at some point, you have to liquidate those. Usually that triggers a recession, something that, so far, hasn't happened.
That was the cause of the IT bust in 2001 (caused by cheap credit under Clinton) and the Housing bust now -- You have to separate out the good investments vs. the bad ones, and write off the latter.
Further, in case you didn't notice, the growth of the M1 money supply has been zero for well over two years now.
The point would be that the economy is all around a lot more subtle and tricky than most even begin to grasp -- it is filled with traps, pitfalls, and counterintuitive behaviors which the average person has no clue about.
This country's GDP is enormous -- we are 1/20th of the world's population yet we produce more than 25% of its wealth (and, for much of the last decade and more, more than 30%).
Perhaps someone is actually doing something right ...
> The one who WON the nomination was the one most in favor of amnesty. So are Republicans in general are not conservatives either?
OK, are you so ignorant of just about everything that goes on with your opposition that you DON'T grasp how unhappy pretty much ALL conservatives are with McCain as a choice? To the point where Obama has a notable benefit from people considering not voting at all just because they deeply hate both choices?
There's a distinct fight brewing in GOP circles over this general issue -- of putting forth candidates who don't represent conservatives AT ALL while trying to pander to the middle-left.
McCain's biggest issue is that he IS clearly not even vaguely conservative. He is clearly a borderline RINO, and his voting history, including Free Speech abortions like "McCain-Feingold" show that. How he got the nom is a subject of much debate. Again, if you actually made any effort to hear what your opposition was talking about, you'd know this.
(continued)
.
> Forty percent of its borrowers became at least 30 days delinquent after the payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages were recast. The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled in the second quarter from the first quarter.
That sort of thing sounds dire, but it's far from the only relevant number. The actual amounts involved (and unspecified in your post) have no context.
Three questions that come to mind, right off the top of my head:
1) What are those numbers in absolute percentages? "The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled" What percentage of homes IS that? If it's one tenth of one percent (and yes, I'm sure it's more), it's trivial.
2) How do those numbers themselves compare to the other downturns? Are they more, or less, or what? Does this suggest that it's currently worse than usual for a downturn, or not?
3) In the light of 2 above -- adjust those numbers for the fact that a record number of Americans has bought a home. How does it compare then?
The fact that, some months ago, there was a record number of Foodstamp claims filed doesn't mean JACK, when you see that, as a percentage of population, it's about average... the US population is at an all-time high, so of course that number would be up without it being a sign of economic catastrophe... But it's front page news to the NYT, who doesn't care about context when they can make the current admin look bad.
Numbers are about context -- always -- they don't just stand all on their own -- you cannot look at them in a vacuum.
> Your first Perry link is just wrong.
You make an assertion without any link. Thanks for the handwave.
Not accepting it, though, nor am I taking your word for it -- especially when you aren't specifically indicating whose opinion it is, so I can neither weigh arguments nor credentials.
Perry is a PhD economist. Who are you quoting and why do they know more than he does? Not saying I trust any PhD economist, mind you, but I know Perry can defend his positions adequately to my satisfaction.
Ditto and ditto about your other two handwaves of CD links, which suffer the same problem.
And if you explore the last couple months of CD posts, you may find the rebuttals to your claims as it is... He's discussed ARM trends already, for example... or you can cite your own sources and e-mail him with them asking for an entry addressing the issues you raise.
> Commercial bankruptcies for the 2nd quarter are up 45% year over year. Businesses are closing or cutting back every where.
Again, CONTEXT.
The link you cite, most of the stores are either mall-based stores (malls have been on the decline for a decade or more), badly run (CompUSA deserved to die, as does Linens and Things, which are actually an offshoot of an almost identical chain), or based on a failing model (Movie Gallery, like Blockbuster, is getting its butt waxed by the Netflix model)
The exceptions to the above include Home Depot (all of 15. Out of how many? And gee -- during a slump after a time of easy credit... can you say "expanded too fast"?) and Pep Boys (all of 33 stores, out of how many? same questions as HD apply).
Notice, however, that the big anchor stores -- Macy's, Dillards, are in the single-digits. Apparently *they* aren't doing that bad.
Again -- I'm not saying things are great, but an obvious context would be to look at non-mall stores -- Old Navy, Target, Men's Wearhouse, things like that, and ask the question: are they crashing and burning?
> Yes. We would have protected the Oil Ministry while letting the rest of the country go to hel. Oh wait, that IS what we did.
Oh, don't give me that CRAP. Refute the points and stop trying to misdirect.
Even on your own BS point:
first everyone is yammering about how it was going to be some massive house to house country-wide fight, then the whole thing collapses overnight. Gee, we actually didn't expect it to be quite that friggin' easy, so weren't prepared to suddenly have to move in and take over completely. Quelle Suprise!
I have nothing non-expletive to respond to people who whine when someone who has accomplished a friggin' wonder didn't accomplish a flat-out miracle.
What was the stat, 56 dead? taking over a country of 25 million, with a larger army than most armies in human history? And then pacifying said nation with a cost, over 4 years time, of well under 5000 dead -- a stat which would represent a particularly bad DAY in most of the major wars of the last two centuries? Here, let me get out the world's smallest violin so I can play you a song of mourning....
Not to belittle the deaths -- any death is a tragedy to the families involved, but I think it says a lot when you grasp that when Cindy Sheehan was whining that she wanted to see Bush a SECOND time, that GWB had met the parents of ONE OUT OF SEVEN of those killed, compared to one in hundreds and more for most of the other PotUSes associated with major combat.
Yeah, I gotcher "debacle" righ'cheere...
Morons.
> The FRS is only part of the problem as they reaised rates back to normal in 2004-2005 and the bubble continued. And the head of the FRS is Ben Bernankem who was appointed by Bush in 2005.
Right -- key word: "Appointed". After that, the PotUS doesn't have a lot to say, short of asking for a resignation, perhaps, and most of these problems are not something of the last two years but created over the course of the last 6-7. You might also notice the timing with that appointment and the reduction in the growth of the money supply I note earlier.
> But we were *always* winning militarily - that didn't help for a long time - why now?
1) Winning militarily doesn't help squat when you have a bunch of Democrat pansies screaming "Cut AND run!! CUT AND RUN" at home emboldening the opposition, does it? It's one thing when the people on the line -- the military (and I mean servicemen, not officers) agree. It's quite another when servicemen almost uniformly support continuing. All the "Cut and run!" screaming does is tell the opposition "Hold on, they're about to give up and go home, giving us the field!!!" And if you can't see that you're blinder than Stevie Wonder.
2) After they could not win militarily, they changed tactics, which focused first on the Iraqi military and police, then on the citizens themselves. You might get pissed off at people risking their lives to defend you, but apparently the Iraqi people are smart enough to get pissed off at the ones whom they are there to defend them against.
> Could it be the fact that we "encouraged" the Anbar Awakening by paying the participants $300/mo each? If so, are we really winning hearts and minds or just pocketbooks?
What you fail to grasp is that, having known peace and quiet -- people might be less pleased if it stops being "peaceful and quiter". And they are more likely to be pissed off at the ones "making the noise" than at us.
Because I really don't think that the average Iraqi is amazingly different from most of us -- partly because I think the Islamic element is weakest there among the other states of the ME (another reason for invading which gets ignored by the Left) -- As a result of that similarity, I suspect most of them just want to live their lives and be let alone. The sooner we get out, the happier they will be, as long as it doesn't decend into chaos as a result of our leaving... which suggests a slow, gradual withdrawal over multiple years' time, possibly even with some short-term leased bases there to keep a strong presence for as long as it is wanted (and remember, despite protests in SoKo, the moment we made any actual move to leave they STFU).
> You are utterly wrong about what Glass-Steagel was
Point conceded, but it was the repeal PLUS a number of requirements at all levels, state, local, and federal, which placed additional emphasis on making bad loans, usually for "racial equity" reasons, either geographically or individually (WalMart, locally, was not allowed to open a store where they wanted to open it, until they opened one in the "bad side of town" first. Strangely, they've had to arrange for a lot of additional cops there, which, of course, costs them money, and makes that location a lot less viable. No, WalMart was just being racist in not wanting to build there...).
> The 2nd and 3rd show that housing is undesirable as an investment or as compared to rental until prices drop.
I agree with you -- partly -- in that prices are inflated from where they are likely to wind up. I disagree with your argument that they will drop back to 2000 levels, because I believe that we have hit a point where average people have more disposable income than historically (smaller families and individual income is up substantially), and that people are willing to use that disposable income more on buying more substantial houses. So income-to-price ratio will stabilize at a higher rate -- what you will see is an echo of the curve you generated, which applied through the 70s until ca. 1982, then dropped and stabilized for 20-odd years at about 2.8x -- I'll bet you that the price will drop and stabilize at about 3.5x income. But 3.6 to 3.4 would not surprise. Incomes pass a crux point, and after that more people are willing to spend money on the quality of their house, or on a second house if they are sufficiently mobile (and more people are and/or will be, with the average age climbing and fewer kids to worry about, both with college and with the expense of raising them).
That's my opinion not an official one.
Despite the caterwauling to the contrary by the media, the middle class is getting richer, just like the rich. This means they can spend more money on housing.
> If Bush is a conservative,
> Oh, lookie here, I actually said IF.
And you've ignored the entire gist of my response, which is that If you paid ANY attention *WHATSOEVER* to conservatives, you would know already that Bush fails as a conservative on most levels, and there is PLENTY of commentary to that effect in conservative circles. So you don't get to cast aspersions on conservatives just because Bush makes a very lousy one.
> If you can point me to the "Official, No Shit, Really, Conservative's Doctrine and Handbook", I'd be much obliged.
Sorry, not going to do the work for you. If you're going to write about conservatives you need to actually spend the time to investigate them a little bit in order to actually be able to comment on them. Otherwise, you're talking through your hat.
You don't get to just invent complaints and then throw them out unchallenged.
And in this case you did -- you did no research, you just presumed anyone who claimed they were conservative was.
Hint: McCain is not a conservative, either.
> But Bush says he's a conservative.
OK, I say I am your Lord and Master. From now on, I want you to send me your paycheck every week.
What? What I *say* doesn't mean *jack* about what is really the case?
Obama claims he's "middle of the road" these days. Given that he's a politician, what do YOU think that claim is worth?
Starting to figure it out, yet??
> What is your fucking problem?
My problem, bob, is when you make what are clearly disingenuous comparisons, and ones which I think you either know better or should know better, indicating one of two things, either stupidity or prevarication. Neither deserves a great deal of respect, as either is a demonstrated lack of respect for those reading...
Either you should not be lying, or you should be aware that you aren't thinking sufficiently effectively to have a valid opinion worth expressing.
I could, for example, express an opinion on the Yankee's lineup in their next game, but since I know literally nothing about baseball beyond the basics, any opinion would be stupid for me to express. I'd just be talking out my ass. And once someone realized that, I'd agree, it's open season on calling me a dunderhead for thinking my opinion was worthy of expression at all. I just wasted someone's time getting them to listen to me.
And you confuse a small measure of, and expression of, disapproval for such with a far more extreme emotion. You know, the kind you find over on Atrios, DailyKos etc., which doesn't even involve conservatives at all, directly.
To repeat the question, which is at least partly serious:
(This is mostly off-topic about conservatives, but is relevant about Left-liberals
> So which are you, as well as your associates, for suggesting this seriously -- Stupid or Racist?
I find that most Left policy is one or the other -- it assumes things like the notion that black people need handouts, because they can't do for themselves what every other racial group, creed, and nationality has managed, which is to overcome the societal biases which have arrayed against them in the past, but are far weaker now. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Poles, all faced substantial resistance to their joining the melting pot. Yet they don't need handouts, nor special rules to help them succeed in our society.
"Oh, but slavery makes them different".
At one point, you might have been able to make that argument, but it's been long enough that that as an issue should have lessened, which it hasn't. In fact, blacks are worse off than ever before, with something like 1 in 3 or more incarcerated, and fewer black males than ever seeking a college education, which, most critically, is the one key element to success (not race) in our society, with an exceedingly high correlation.
Not only is this an issue for black males, but females, who find that they have fewer and fewer suitable mates to choose from.
"What do you expect given how they were treated?".
Well, I'll grant that those of Oriental descent (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, etc.) were not quite enslaved, but they were treated not a great deal better, paid poorly, perceived as less intelligent, and, had one attempted to flirt with a white woman they would have been lynched just as quickly as a black man.
In most areas they were expected to speak deferentially and "separate but equal" was just as common.
Despite this similar background, they somehow manage to *exceed* white achievements, and are at least, if not more, successful than whites.
The notion that black people cannot overcome the past and succeed on their own merits is racist and demeaning.
The history of the Democratic party is itself racist and filled with betrayals of promises of equal rights, including, but not limited to, the Dixiecrats in 1948 but also the wholesale betrayal at the 1964 Dem convention of duly-elected black representatives, which I claim led specifically to the widespread black unrest and general racial tensions in the later 60s. The bad taste it left has since been feeding racial tensions on the black side, and the biggest crock of shit is that the GOP has allowed this fraudulent portrayal of itself as "racist" by the Dems and the Left to stand largely unchallenged.
Contrast:
A:
We pledge that our American citizens of Negro descent shall be given a square deal in the economic and political life of this nation. Discrimination in the civil service, the army, navy, and all other branches of the Government must cease. To enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness universal suffrage must be made effective for the Negro citizen. Mob violence shocks the conscience of the nation and legislation to curb this evil should be enacted.
B:
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.
We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
A is from the 1940 GOP platform
B is from the 1948 Dixiecrat Platform
With this history, I take serious issue with the Dems having the unmitigated GALL of calling ANYONE else "racist".
And it's not like you can say it's changed -- The Kerry campaign didn't have a single significant black staffer on the rolls until someone commented about it. Multiple Lefty political cartoonists depict college-educated, highly accomplished black people working in some of the highest jobs in the land as "Uncle Toms", "Stepinfetchits", "Pickaninnies", and "Mynah Birds"... and not a single negative word is said. Unspoken, but very much there: "After all, it's not like them darkies could have acheived that kind of status on their own merits, is it? None of the ones we associate with have..."
Shame on you all -- if you didn't sound off, publicly and loudly against such comments, you are as racist as they come. If that did not offend you to the core, then your belief in "equality" is nothing but a sham.
And the whole idea that anyone who chooses to NOT vote for Obama "must be a racist" is just as racist.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
If we pay ANY attention to the color of Obama's skin -- pro or against -- Any attention AT ALL -- are we not ignoring the entire point of King's speech, which I believe is truly summarized by the above excerpt?
===
And the subject came up because I think the whole argument in favor of events in Iraq "generating terrorism" requires that someone assume that Iraqis and other Muslims are stupid, and incapable of forming their own rational opinions.
Just as your rather substantial emphasis on the money paid out implied that these people can be bought off, rather absurdly easily.
If that was the case, someone would've turned in bid Laden years ago.
So I'm calling you on it. I think you have a notably low opinion of the intelligence of Iraqis, to take such proposals seriously when you don't have evidence to support it.
You're openly suggesting that they have so little character that they are willing to take what are highly divisive religious issues -- Sunni vs. Shiite -- and look the other way for Ca$h.
If that WERE the case, then the whole of Iraq would be a financial powerhouse, because if all it took was an offering of money to ignore their principles, they'd be out spending their oil money developing their economy to kick the ass of the Japanese and the Germans.
OBH,
That last post was the most totally full of shit thing I've ever seen.
I have never said or implied the things you imply I say in quotes. I don't believe those things. The fact that you are now having conversations in which you occupy both ends says one thing: you should get back on your meds.
If I vote for Obama, it won't be because he's black. There isn't anything anywhere I've ever written that supports any other view.
Quoting the Dixiecrat platform of 1948 as if it represent the Democrats is so far delusional it defies belief: maybe you didn't notice that the Democrats ran Harry Truman - who won - on a civil rights platform in 1948. It was the Dixiecrat's intolerance of that platform that made them split off into the loathesome "State's Rights" party.
Once agin: say yes to drugs. The doc prescribed them for a reason.
> That last post was the most totally full of shit thing I've ever seen.
Nice, very reasoned, well justified response. Don't refute anything.
And ignore the fact that it was an aside relating to the issue with Dems and their racism, but attack it like it was the only thing discussed.
handwave handwave, and... handwave.
You must have lots of stamina in those arms by now, huh?
bob, you don't grasp the slightest thing about rational debate or argument, and you really, really don't have the slightest clue how to assemble your points to produce a coherent argument justifying a point.
But you do know how to handwave.
> "I have never said or implied the things you imply I say in quotes. I don't believe those things."
Good. If this is true, then you are atypical of most Dems and Lefties.
I did not specifically quote you, but I do explicitly note that you did NOT observe that you, too, were extremely outraged at the media's demeaning portrayal of Condi Rice and Colin Powell -- both extremely accomplished individuals and, regardless of whether or not you agree with their politics, have no business being disparraged by the use of reprehensible black stereotypes. It's most interesting that you chose to utterly ignore this matter.
Agreeing with me now, after being prodded on it *twice*, does not do much to bolster any defense of yourself, unless you do so by pointing me to diatribes you wrote back when it was happening...
I suggest that this challenges your position that you aren't racist, and that racist behaviors aren't really, really all that offensive to you.
> "If I vote for Obama, it won't be because he's black."
Good, because, once again, it's quite clear that there are plenty of Dems and Lefties out there for whom this IS a singular voting point, and anyone who indicates that they won't vote for him, to them, the only POSSIBLE reason is because of "racism".
I never explicitly suggested that *you* took the position ascribed (I do see that it might have been inferred or suggested by a lack of sufficient verbage -- apologies), it was a general jeremiad against positions expressed by many of those whose positions you agree with.
I was writing a polemic against the general Dem/Lefty racist mindset, not specifically aiming it at you, but making a group of points which deal with accusations which are automatically included when coming from that Dem/Lefty position.
> Quoting the Dixiecrat platform of 1948 as if it represent the Democrats is so far delusional
No, it's not. It represented a schism in the party, yes, but which did not remain so in the least... The Dixiecrats were "Democrats" in 1944 and 1952 and every other election. And, were it an isolated instance, your claim that it was not typical would have validity.
It wasn't isolated, though, which is my point.
Far from it.
The events of the 1964 convention, clearly delineated in the linked article, and which showed Humphrey to be an unprincipled, self-serving hack, as well as the identified racist behaviors in more recent times, make it clear that it is a long-running undercurrent in the party and in modern liberal ideology itself.
When modern liberals will stand by and ignore overtly racist epithets **solely** because the target is a member of the GOP, then clearly racism isn't a problem to them: it's a tool.
And for my lights, that means anyone who claims the mantle of "liberal", but doesn't visibly and vehemently decry such racist behavior -- regardless of the target -- are themselves tools.
Major tools.
====
Finally, you completely sidestep the *real* issue, which is that most Dem/Lefty policies are themselves inherently racist, because at their heart they presume an inherent inability of blacks to help themselves unlike EVERY OTHER RACIAL, CREED, OR NATIONAL GROUP.
They confer a mantle of victimhood upon black people which allows all manner of self-destructive and inappropriate social behaviors to be excused and written off.
Liberals perform the singlarly undesirable social function of being "enablers".
The end result has been the kind of destruction of black people which the worst eugenicists of the first half of the 1900s could only dream of.
And if the Dems/Lefties were acknowledging that, it would be excusable -- an error was made in good faith, let's figure out how to right it.
But they aren't, because, when push comes to shove, the plight of blacks doesn't mean Jack F***ING S**T to any of them.
To acknowledge the issues would require acknowledging a massive error on their part. Which would make them "feel bad about themselves" -- it would "lower their self-esteem". Awwwwww....
Which gets us back to tooldom, in every earlier applied sense of the word.
And bob, you haven't managed to address any of those matters, either on a personal level or as a liberal -- beyond the point of going "Nuuu-UUUHHHH!!"...
===================
===================
But that's not the overall topic of this thread, which is your strawman claim that "conservatives aren't conservative because Bush is a sucky conservative", is lame and ridiculous.
Any conservative could have told you that, and would have. Any reading of conservatives would have encountered, years ago, complaints about Bush's massive failings as a conservative.
You're dodging that problem, too.
OBH,
You say One need not be satan worshipping to be a socialist, just abysmally stupid. The record of socialism and communism in the last 100 years of its implementation has been so abysmally pitiful -- both economically and in humanitarian terms, that one must be singularly stupid to continue to adhere to it.
But Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists, not Socialists. It doesn't matter where you start out - once the State has all the power, it is all over.
And here is the absolute crux of my dislike for the right: the biggest issue of every generation and people is to avoid concentration of power.
The whole idea behind the contitution is to avoid concentration of power. And especially, to avoid concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, because they are the ones with the guns and prisons. The right wing, especially this administration, have arrogated to the executive powers that are frightening.
If the government can grab you at will, throw you in a hole and never let you see a lawyer or a courtroom - if the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended at will, ala the MCA (which Obama opposed and McCain supported) - then the battle is lost forever.
And remember, it has been your argument that peoples are in the most danger from their own governments - giving the executive these powers in order to fight terrorism is tightening the noose around our necks. Once we're in a hole, it will not matter if the prison guards are right-wing fascists or left-wing communists.
Because the government, without checks, has proven most fatal to its people, I want Habeas Corpus and the right to speedy trial and all the other contitutional goodies preserved. If it lets some terrorist out who does great harm, will I be sorry? Yes - I will grieve for those lost and those left behind - and No, because I will be grieving in an America that is still worth living and dying for, not some Statist shell that only bears the name.
If Congress is denied information and access it needs to oversee the executive - then it canot oversee the executive and another check/balance is gone.
And if Big Business gets big enough and is allowed to purchase the political process - both parties are guilty of being purchased, but it always seems to be the right wing that aids and abets the vested interests the most - then that is *also* an unacceptable concentration of power that threatens freedom.
When you have your reflexive "business == good" and "governement regulation == bad" moment, remember that todays businessman are not Henry Reardon or Francisco D'Anconia - they are Orren Boyle and James Taggart, every one of them. Watch what Hank Paulson - the vilest speciment of both worlds - says and does. He has written a blank check to the GSEs in their current form - meaning that their profits are still privatized, but the coming immense losses will be socialized.
Alright, this is nearly over because I've had enough of your abuse.
Even *after* I've addressed your "Bush != Conservatism" point by changing the title of this post, you are still ranting about it AND raving about opinions you attribute to "people who think like [me]".
You have no idea how I think or what I believe, only some 1-dimensional construct that exists in your head.
Read my blog posts, all of them, then come back here and tell me I'm some raving Liberal. 2 posts celebrating DC v Heller (one of which comdemns Obama's dishonest stand on the issue), another post excoriating the peculiar views of Liberals in general, 2 posts condemning political correctness and multi-culturalism when dealing with Islam, a post linking to another blog which lists legal use of private guns in self defense, a couple of posts with amusing bumper stickers ("McCain: The Least Repu;lsive Democrat running"). Oh yeah, there's a new post bashing Bush. So go ahed, tell me what a frothing lefty I am. You're just wrong.
Where have I ever condoned the allegedly racist mistreatment of Rice and Powell? Never happened - it's all in your head. I think they are gifted people who tragically placed their gifts in service of one of the most flawed Presidents ever. But that opinion would not change based on their race.
I disagreed with your CD links, each time stating why in the same sentence or immediately after. You quote half of one sentence and dismiss it as hand-waving because I don't provide links - even though I've refered to the economics blog links here on my blog several times.
As for Dixiecrats and Democrats, I mentioned that the Dems ran Truman on a civil rights plank and you dismiss it. Hey, Truman won - I guess you only ever saw that Chicago Tribune headline.
Nobody died when Clinton lied.
Oh yeah your "Iraqis no longer ask, 'Are you Sunni or Shiite?'" story - did you notice it was one anecdote about the good news but as it became more general, it was more skeptical? And I didn't use the title, preferring "Morning in Iraq" because I was riffing on the vacuous "Morning in America" ads Reagan used in 1984. No good salivating socialist can resist that urge.
I saw a great T-shirt at the supermarket today: "If you don't like my attitude, stop talking to me". Not bad advice.
If you can't be civil, I will start ignoring you, here and everywhere else. What fun is that?
And one final note, and this isn't meant as an ad hominem attack: your hatred hurts you a lot more than it hurts its target.
> But Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists, not Socialists.
um, bob. What does is "Nazi" short for? Here.
Did you really not know that, or were you presuming that not only would *I* be ignorant of it but that your readers would be, too, and no one would call you on it?
And fascism is just another variety of socialism. The underlying idealogical justification is different, but it's still about state ownership of all things. That's socialism:
Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services
> And here is the absolute crux of my dislike for the right: the biggest issue of every generation and people is to avoid concentration of power.
They HOW in God's name can you possibly support modern liberals AT ALL?
Conservatives TALK and WORK to reduce most government intervention, especially at the macro level. And YES, the GOP FAILs at this, far more often than I (libertarian, recall) and most conservatives are happy with. And I don't particularly like the efforts of some conservatives towards increasing moral intervention, which is certainly just as bad.
But the straight up fact is, to modern liberals, the solution to ALL problems is "More Government, and More Money For Government".
We don't need more government, or more regulation. We've got, what, more than 10,000 pages of legalese in regulation coming out each year? What we need is more responsibility and more accountability. Governments aren't about that, they are bureaucracies. A bureaucracy's sole purpose is to spread responsibility around within the bureaucracy, so that no one individual can have a finger pointed at him and have someone say "It's his fault!"
What we need to do is stop trying to solve problems with government, but instead to create businesses whose job it is to oversee things we want regulated.
Usually, these are insurance companies -- but adding a measure of "The Buck Stops Here" to them by eliminating the ability of supervisors to blame some poor schnook below them, and to absolve them of any real responsibility for that which they exist to oversee is the only way to make sure things get done right.
> And especially, to avoid concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, because they are the ones with the guns and prisons.
No, you're wrong. There are three branches specifically to make it difficult for ANY of the branches to gain excess power.
There's no specific reference for this, but I will lay you odds that this Triumvirate nature of the system was quite specific in the minds of the Founders -- because power triumvirates tend to be very, very stable. If one side of the triumvirate acts to gain too much power, the other two join forces to chop it off before it can overpower them both. There are numerous historical examples of this, both in the past to the FFs and in the more recent past, as well. Key examples would include the events in Russia after Stalin died (KGB-vs-Army-vs-Politburo) and the reason why France gave China "The Bomb" after the Cuban Missle Crisis (and why Clinton essentially gave Pakistan the bomb, creating a new triumvirate between traditional enemies: India-vs-China-vs-Pakistan).
Yes, you are correct, you don't want the executive branch to gain too much power -- it's one of the reasons the branch has so short a term associated with it, as well as the only one with actual term limits... to prevent any sort of "imperial" Presidency.
But do not by any means fail to grasp that you don't reduce the power of the executive branch by giving power to either of the other two branches -- you remove the power wholesale -- in its entirety.
And you also have a situation which is at odds, because 911 was a defacto act of war against the USA by a foreign power. Said foreign power is an inchoate and dispersed one, which makes traditional techniques for dealing with it ineffective. But it does not change the key fact that executive power expands during times of war, because, as the man said, "A committee is the only known form of life with six or more heads and no brain". And the other two branches are, essentially, committees.
> If the government can grab you at will, throw you in a hole and never let you see a lawyer or a courtroom - if the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended at will, ala the MCA (which Obama opposed and McCain supported) - then the battle is lost forever.
I'm assuming you refer to this.
Well, since it CAN be suspended during times of war, what would be your issue? Lincoln did it, and yes, there are certainly people who most emphatically do NOT honor him as a result of it. But it's pretty much a given that the Executive branch has both the right and the power to do that thing under those circumstances.
My chief problem with such things, such as this and The Patriot Act is that the problems which they aim to deal with are non-citizens, and the laws in question do NOT, AFAIK, make the strong and overt distinction that they do NOT apply to citizens.
I concur, citizens have rights under the Con, but no, non-citizens do NOT, particularly enemy combatants who explicitly are violating EVERY law of war since we started accepting the idea that wars had law applying to them in the first place.
So if you are going to rail against them, it is not the PotUS you should be complaining about, it is the Congress who failed to make that distinction.
BTW, as an aside, it's not BUSH who initially produced the entire idea of extraordinary rendition OR "international surveillance". Both EA and IS were implemented in their current form by Bush's predecessor... perhaps you've heard of him? Bill something or other.
Strangely, it wasn't until a GOP PotUS with a clear and evident threat to the US and its interests to justify its application were any issues raised about these two concepts. Kinda funny, innit? (I'm not claiming Clinton was wrong -- though I believed and expressed otherwise at the time, mind you, prior to 911 -- I'm claiming the caterwauling is *politically* inspired, and not the result of any actual concerns about the rights of the people being violated.)
My only concerns with these issues as a whole is that the laws in question can be misapplied to true freedom fighters and patriots here in the USA, which is very much what the restriction of the Con are supposed to be there to prevent.
The fact that the JD sent out info packets to law enforcement everywhere, upon passage of the Patriot Act, expressly advising them how to apply the PA to cases not remotely related to terrorism is particularly unacceptable to me.
And one of the chief reasons why I am concerned with the growth of government as a whole.
The problem is, the issues which terrorism presents are not going to be resolved by ignoring them, which is the Dem plan. They think these pricks can be reasoned with, pressured morally, and that bringing them to the table is actually an accomplishment.
The result of such damnfoolishness has already been experienced once, so the need to repeat the lesson should be utterly minimal.
The simple fact is, Dems and Leftys don't grasp one of the key facts of the universe and human nature... As it was so eloquently put by The Dark Knight movie:
"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
It's probably going to get worse before it gets better.
This is a core battle of ideologies.
It's neither the first one humans have been involved in, nor is it the last.
And there are no simple solutions.
We need to find ways to get at these enemies, and still limit the misuse of those means being applied against us.
The first time I hear a "typical" Dem official openly grasp this (as opposed to pariahs like Zell Miller or Lieberman), it'll be the first.
> The first time I hear a...
LOL. "The next time..."
Doh!
> I want Habeas Corpus and the right to speedy trial and all the other contitutional goodies preserved. If it lets some terrorist out who does great harm, will I be sorry?
No, because you are clearly misapplying the "terrorist" meme... and I will agree that the current laws fail to make the distincion to my satisfaction.
A foreign national -- "terrorist" -- acting without uniform and in civilian clothing -- has no rights to claim under the Constitution.
Such are and have been spies (see "Risks") under the laws for all of recent human history (i.e., for centuries, if not millenia), and are subject to just about any treatment we deem necessary, up to and including summary execution without trial.
US Citizens *do* have a right to due process. Foreign spies *do not*.
And so far, all the applications of the laws we both have issues with have been people, to the best of my knowledge, who clearly qualify as spies and saboteurs under every historical convention I'm aware of.
The irrational extention of full civil rights to these individuals not only endangers all of us, but also the military who have put their lives on the line to protect us -- and even more critically, their families who can and will be subject to reprisals by said terrorists and their unincarcerated cronies.
And one further fact of this is that such rules will substantially lessen the willingness of the soldiers to capture suspected terrorists.
Why the hell would you risk your life to capture someone, which is much tougher to accomplish, when all you have to do is put a bullet in their head during the action?
Which literally *increases* the dangers to innocents -- because instead of capturing someone, investigating them, and deciding that they may not be terrorists, and letting them go subsequent to those investigations, we're now going to have every reason to just shoot first and worry about the results later.
Which is flat-out stupid.
> both parties are guilty of being purchased, but it always seems to be the right wing that aids and abets the vested interests the most
Also flat out stupid, since "the left wing", by endlessly seeking increased power for regulatory bureaucracies is essentially putting power into the hands of corruptable individuals, which just gives power to those eeeeevil corporate bastards anyway.
The notion that EITHER side is even vaguely pristine in this regard is preposterous to the point where you beg to be called an idiot again, just for attributing pure motives to people, many of whom have just as much to gain personally from that which they espouse as anyone associated with big business ever will.
Al Gore would be a particularly key example. I would guarantee you that many libtards would actually state "Why would he lie about global warming?" Ok, let's recite a few "duh" items:
1) After the 2000 election he was a historical note, of no further significance. Since becoming the High Priest of Global Warming, he's become a cause celebre, and the talking heads gush over and over about "Al Gore, 2.0", and suggest him for Veep and/or at least "First Minister for the Environment".
2) He's been pushing Cap and Trade bullshit, which he has singularly been situating himself and his business partners to be a substantial force in the allocation and distribution of. Money, much, ya think? Power, much, ya think?
3) Personal accolades out the ying-yang, including a Nobel prize and endless gushing tributes to stroke his ego...
And he's not alone -- there are currently BILLIONS of dollars out there in government slush ready to be poured on the heads of The Right People who Prove Global Warming.
And if you don't think those billions of dollars and mass media notoriety are at least as distorting a force in science as they are in any *other* human endeavor, you're ... stupid.
:-/
Note: I'm not ascribing these positions to you, but showing that they are inevitably a result of your supposition that The Right has all the Bad Guys. There are just as many quacks, charlatans, and demagogues on the Left as on the Right. And frankly, I do think that *more* of the ones on the Right have principles which limit the kind of nefarious activities they will engage in. The ones on The Left are certain that they act "in a good cause" -- and as such believe that there are few limits on what they can justify.
If you don't think that there are a lot of people out there who will wholeheartedly back reprehensible calls for trial for people expressing opposition to the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming -- then you haven't been paying attention.
And once you head down that road, you won't like the destination.
Criminalizing speech is not a positive social force. And The Left is behind many, if not all, of the modern efforts in this regard.
> Where have I ever condoned the allegedly racist mistreatment of Rice and Powell? Never happened - it's all in your head.
Go back and read it. It's all in YOUR head.
I said that if you DID NOT OPENLY SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT, you gave it tacit acceptance.
If you hear someone claiming someeone else is a racist, solely because they don't support Obama -- and you don't jump on said racist prick with both feet -- then you give that racism tacit acceptance.
It doesn't matter what the politics of the individual being dumped on are -- racism is racism, no matter what the justification.
"If we don't speak out [against Senator McCarthy], we share responsibility for everything he does."
- Edward R. Murrow -
Not that I agree with Murrow's application, the principle, however -- that one has a duty to speak out against serious wrongs -- and racism is one of those wrongs -- goes hand in hand with the right of free speech.
"That you never agreed with them" isn't enough.
By silence you have implied a measure of implicit consent.
I'm not surprised you appear to have failed this test.
Many did.
I want to make you self-watchful enough that you never fail it again.
> As for Dixiecrats and Democrats, I mentioned that the Dems ran Truman on a civil rights plank and you dismiss it
I said that the people involved with the Dixiecrats were Dems before and Dems after. Do you think that their racism was a momentary thing? That it "softly and silently faded away", like it met a boojum?
YOU've been trying to handwave this fact away repeatedly.
> You quote half of one sentence and dismiss it as hand-waving because I don't provide links - even though I've refered to the economics blog links here on my blog several times.
Because when you don't express more than a half-sentence which is nothing but unjustified naysaying, THAT'S A HANDWAVE. And if you don't point me to something which backs up your rejection, then THAT'S A HANDWAVE. I don't give a rat's ass that you have used links at some point in the past for some utterly unrelated issue. What thee hell does that have to do with "THIS thread" (i.e., whatever you're claiming).
THAT DOESN'T MEAN JACK about THIS point you've just tried to make.
I don't claim you have to make a whole case yourself supporting your single-statement denials -- I say that if you want them to be taken as more than a mere handwave, you have to supply some basis for the statement, most readily to apply a link -- which can be to your own stuff detailing your arguments from sometime, or someone else's stuff detailing arguments which you agree and which you believe support your point.
For one thing, it allows people to look at your justifications, and see if the data it's based on is specious, unreliable, or subject to bias.
If I make an argument that's anti-Gun Control and start tossing off links to the "Free Militias of America" website (I just made that up) as source, you possibly have reason to doubt my conclusions, which calls for either a closer examination or probably even a write-off as a non-serious individual.
What info you've used to come to your positions is subject to review by others for veracity, if you want them to listen to you.
> your hatred
Bob. "Projection". You confuse fervency and annoyance with failure to back up your argumeents with far more emotion than is invested.
Other than certain specific terms, which have ALWAYS been associated with a position which is either associated with liberals fairly consistently or suggested as demonstrated by the support of such a position, there have been NO slurs made upon you or directed at you personally.
For those terms to apply to you, you have to be in agreement with positions which I expressly justify in each case as representing a match with those terms.
Every potentially epithetical instance can be paraphrased in a form somewhat as follows: "You would have to be stupid to believe this. Here's why".
If you reject the position, say so (but you'll need to explain why it doesn't fit with your other positions, if they are connected, which is usually why I brought it up in the first place).
If you reject the analysis, define the basis for such rejection. And you'll need more than a mere handwave, in this case.
> "What is it that is conserved by the "Conservative" Bush?"
Putting quotes around the moniker does not change the connection of Bush to conservatives, which is a false connection. The article still begins "If Bush is a conservative". Bush isn't a conservative. No argument, no debate. Never was one. So what point does the article serve?
I cite it still attempts to smear conservatives as being hypocrites.
Which has been my point all along.
Note -- I for one, rarely vote FOR anyone. I almost always find it easy to find who to vote against, however.
And so the chief answer to the one reasonable question you might ask in this context, "Why do conservatives support Bush if he's such a lousy example of conservatives?", and which an honest approach would have made into a topic, provides the answer: "Because the alternatives, to conservatives, have sucked a hell of a lot worse".
Ah. Sorry - did not see/note your link to the MCA piece. Grasp my responses in that context, it clearly is relevant.
Without conceding the issue, I do have problems with the events described, but need more info before taking a stance on the actions in question.
I will cite that I believe in each case it appears that the individuals in question were either acting as spies or in a manner suggesting such, with the weakest instance of that the one person who was not a citizen, and thus afforded the fewest protections.
And there is a considerable difference between holding someone completely incommunicado, and allowing them to be seen by attorneys, who have rational recourse in the matter.
You certainly incorrectly imply otherwise by:
"If the government can grab you at will, throw you in a hole and never let you see a lawyer or a courtroom."
Greenwald's own account shows the falsehood of your statement (emphasis mine):
"He has been kept in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world other than his lawyers."
So, like Bush and WMDs -- were you lying or were you perhaps merely mistaken in your claim? Note the difference... Nota Bene.
obloodyhell says:
I did not specifically quote you, but I do explicitly note that you did NOT observe that you, too, were extremely outraged at the media's demeaning portrayal of Condi Rice and Colin Powell -- both extremely accomplished individuals and, regardless of whether or not you agree with their politics, have no business being disparraged by the use of reprehensible black stereotypes. It's most interesting that you chose to utterly ignore this matter.
This is puzzling because it, along with all the discussion of racial preferences and ancient Democratic politics, had absolutely nothing to do with the original post or the discussion up to that point. It emerged, sui generis, from the depths of obloodyhell's bag of tricks. No names, no dates, no URLs - so much "hand-waving" as OBH would put it if any body else did it.
I replied:
Where have I ever condoned the allegedly racist mistreatment of Rice and Powell? Never happened - it's all in your head. I think they are gifted people who tragically placed their gifts in service of one of the most flawed Presidents ever. But that opinion would not change based on their race.
And obloodyhell replied:
I said that if you DID NOT OPENLY SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT, you gave it tacit acceptance.
If you hear someone claiming someeone else is a racist, solely because they don't support Obama -- and you don't jump on said racist prick with both feet -- then you give that racism tacit acceptance.
It doesn't matter what the politics of the individual being dumped on are -- racism is racism, no matter what the justification.
"If we don't speak out [against Senator McCarthy], we share responsibility for everything he does."
- Edward R. Murrow -
So once again, no names, dates, URLs, nothing. I am in complete bafflement about that which he speaks.
Then I notice that obloodyhell has a blogger profile - and going there I see: "On Blogger Since April 2005". Which is 3 years longer than me. And he has a blog. Oh, good, thought I, surely I will now see his expression of outrage and at least know what he is talking about.
So I go to ohbloodyhell's blog - which, remember, he has had 3 years longer than me - only to find:
NOTHING!
Nada! Zip! Bupkis! Nil! Zilch!
(Oh alright there's a nice link to Google News - which is probably part of the default template - and a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head. whoopy.)
This whole business about people allegedly taking racist swipes at Rice and Powell was such an outrage to him that he couldn't be bothered to post about it - and Blogger makes it really easy to post the original entries - much more so than comments.
What can this mean, I say to my self. And self answers: "You've been had - you have been feeding a troll."
Because that is the secret to obloodyhell. He's a troll. Facts don't matter, except to back up vitriol. Throw up huge amounts of stuff, hoping it sticks. When in trouble, change the subject, preferably to something so incendiary that thought processes may be disrupted. And always, always, attack.
Never accept anything but complete surrender, and then don't accept that either. Don't even think of giving an opponent credit for being reasonable.
New policy on Liberative:
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
> No names, no dates, no URLs - so much "hand-waving" as OBH would put it if any body else did it.
What, are you ACTUALLY attempting to deny knowledge of it *now* as a defense?
BWAAAAAhahahahhahahahaaaaaa....!!!
Answer the question, bob, or there is no doubt about your being a racist:
Did you or did you not express outrage when you heard of the racial slurs committed -- repeatedly -- against Colin Powell and Condi Rice?
It is, indeed, a side topic, but one which feeds directly into the counter point:
Conservatives sometimes fail their principles... and some people who claim to be conservative clearly aren't.
Bush is, indeed, one who is commonly associated with conservatives who is far more middle-of-the-road than anyone calling themselves a conservative should be. And most, if not all, conservatives would have openly agreed with this if asked.
(...but you don't actually *know* any conservatives, do you, bob?)
Liberals, OTOH, don't give a crap.
"Principles"? Whut Dat?
I claim that "racism", "racial equality", as well as "sexual equality" are nothing but tools to gain votes to liberals.
As a group, they do not give one rat's ass about them.
If you look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary, there should be a picture of a liberal as the obvious example used.
This racism/sexism is exemplified repeatedly through the identified history, both past and recent (for example, by the utter silence of NOW when Clinton sexually harassed his interns).
Also, you might note how it was Democratic primary voters, not Republicans, who were supposedly un/willing to vote solely on the basis of Obama "because he was black", and Hillary "because she was female".
If either of those qualities were EVEN considered as a basis for voting for either candidate, then the voter in question is a racist/sexist.
I side with ML King -- I judge a person by the content of their character. By their actions. Their skin color (or genitalia) are not a factor.
Are there racists and sexists among the GOP? -- sure. Not making any sort of a claim of sainthood regards the GOP's constituency -- but if you can, and should, give the GOP crap about Mark Foley's obvious problems, then the same is true for the much more widespread hypocrisy inherent in literally everything Dems and the Left do.
Kerry's campaign staff, 1948, 1964, NOW, Doonesbury, Oliphant, and the 2008 Primaries. The list of racist, sexist BS just keeps getting longer and longer.
> So once again, no names, dates, URLs, nothing. I am in complete bafflement about that which he speaks.
bob, one of two things:
1) You are so flat out blatantly lying it's pitiful
-OR-
2) You are so ignorant of everything happening in politics in the last decade that you should shut up and be quiet and read steadily for the next five years before you open your mouth again on the subject.
Take your pick.
The things of which I speak are utterly common knowledge.
This isn't some obscure factoid I'm using, it's stuff that, once more, like Bush's lack of "conservatism", is widely known in the circles you claim to know enough about to comment on.
Only you don't really know jack about the opposition. Which feeds right back into how this relates to this thread -- You set up a straw man argument on the basis of your own total lack of knowledge of conservativism and conservative issues.
I'm going to hammer that point, bob, because it's central to your thesis, and it renders your thesis utterly foundationless.
> So I go to ohbloodyhell's blog - which, remember, he has had 3 years longer than me - only to find
LOL, I don't even think I intentionally created that. It's either an accidental creation when I was trying to do something else using the profile or an automatic one when I created the account.
Beside that, bob -- WHAT does that have to do with jack?
You're like Dan Rather chasing down the TANG memos...
(Hint: Even if the TANG memos WERE real, they didn't matter!! By 2004, Bush had already shown adequate competency as CIC (regardless of your opinion on this point -- it didn't matter to voters) and the TANG memos were irrelvant.
This would be unlike the history of Kerry's service, which was at issue, as much because Kerry made it an issue as because his history actually **sucked**.
In short, like Dan Rather, you've brought up something which has not the slightest visible or rational bearing on the matter, while imagining you've made some enormously relevant discovery.
Congratulations, bob -- you've discovered your own flatulence.
> a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head. whoopy.
It's called an avatar, bob. And some blogs are set up to use it beside comment entries. You would have seen this if you'd EVER visited CD as I suggested, for an alternate viewpoint from the uniformly *lefty* economic twits you apparently listen to, judging from your opinions.
But you haven't because, like most liberal/lefties (regardless of how you style yourself) you really don't seek out opposing viewpoints to defend your positions against.
And on those occasions when you do encounter them, you quickly retreat behind cheap theatrics like calling me a troll solely because I have no patience with your being a readily demonstrable fool.
----
P.S., if anyone wants to understand the joke -- and its particularly apt application with regards to bob -- click on my avatar, then click again on the picture on the profile. That should enlarge it enough to see the associated text. The late rabbit's name is "Oolong", btw, and he's got a wiki entry.
---
> Blogger makes it really easy to post the original entries - much more so than comments.
Again, such a blatant lie that it's ridiculous.
Blogger doesn't make it anywhere near as easy to post entries as comments -- this would be pretty much impossible: Type. Click. Done. -- and anyone who has actually created a blog entry would know that. Among other things: A blog entry requires massively more attention to formatting than the comments engine allows. Do I include a picture? A graph? What should be the name of the blog? What skin should it use? Q.E.D.
While it's not needfully difficult, it's nowhere near as *simple* as posting comments.
And somehow, all this is supposed to invalidate my point, mind you -- "iiiiiiiiii" didn't feel outraged enough to write about it in some automatically or inadvertently created blog that I've clearly never used in the least, and so would NEVER expect anyone to even look at/for. And so, he imagines he's proven that "I clearly wasn't outraged at all by it."
Given that it's clear that I tend to express myself via comments, not "my own blog", one would expect to hunt down such in comments I've posted. And there are some out there (although comments on some blogs are ephemeral).
> This whole business about people allegedly taking racist swipes
Ah, once more, he's trying to deflect attention from his own silence on the matter. First he ignored it. Then he was trying to claim ignorance. Now he's shifted it even further to trying to suggest that the whole thing was made up in the first place.
How convenient.
You have to ask yourself -- if someone makes a direct accusation of racism against you, esp. with a specific example of the claim -- are you going to ignore it completely, or is it going to be a focus worthy of, at the least, denial right at the start?
If you ignored it, it's almost certainly because you didn't have a defense at all, and hoped you wouldn't get called on it.
Like all people with a lefty bent, bob is a racist at heart, with a low opinion of black people and their ability to do what every other racial, national, and creed-based group in the nation has done, which is to prosper without handouts, assistance, welfare, or "reparations". At the heart of all his left-leaning positions lies an innate supposition of black inferiority.
========
As far as this "bait and switch" racism element he claims I've applied, I'll point out the obvious:
It's not like bob's actually refuted ANY OTHER POINTS on the original topic, either.
I can't exactly trash anything in that regard because he's failed to render any kind of assault on those points.
In effect, he's the one doing the "bait and switch" by attempting to shift the focus away from responding to those points.
=========
PS. Since bob couldn't be bothered, I took the time to hunt down a few images:
Here
Here
And Here
Those are the ones about Condi. There are similarly disgusting ones about Colin Powell.
Had any prominent liberal black figure been depicted in like manner, the Left would have been screaming for the creator's head -- and still grumbling about it years after the decapitation.
Condi Rice, regardless of what you think of her political views, is a highly educated and highly visible black person who has advanced to the position of fifth in line to the most powerful political job in the entire world.
There are certainly mechanisms for rendering one's low opinion of her views which don't need to resort to vile racial stereotypes.
To suggest that her accomplishments are solely due to her being a mindless, ignorant suckup and lickspittle to the white establishment is about as despiccable and demeaning as one can be.
The message is thus: "Clearly, all blacks in high positions in the GOP must be incompetent and undeserving of their positions -- we *Democrats* have always found them that way."
So much for racial equality from liberals.
> So, like Bush and WMDs -- were you lying or were you perhaps merely mistaken in your claim? Note the difference... Nota Bene.
And I just want to add that bob failed to respond to this note demonstrating that he was either lying or mistaken.
Once more, he's hoping someone won't read that by ignoring it, and just be outraged by his initial posting.
Post a Comment