U.S. Politics III

[DanteGabriel]

Dear GOP,

Your mistake here, strangely enough, is not thinking big enough. It's not enough to trot Joe around for shiny-headed photo ops and to "consult" with him on his insights into parlaying worthlessness and shamelessness into a media career, or not being a plumber, or wishing he was in a high enough tax bracket to pay more taxes under Obama. This country is in a crisis and desperate times call for desperate measures.

Please run Joe the Plumber for high office in 2012.

Yr friends,

National Association for the Self Immolation of the Republican Party

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1673427' date='Feb 4 2009, 05.22']::sighs:: John Kenady, my point is that necessity is in the eye of the beholder. If eliminating unnecessary government spending were so easy we'd have done it already. All of this supposedly frivolous spending benefits some constituency or another, which is why it gets through Congress in the first place. I remember a few years back someone criticized NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg for voting to fund a Woodstock museum, saying it was wasteful, unneeded, blah blah. I am certain that the restauranteers located near that museum would disagree, as would the folks hired to build and maintain it, and so forth.

Cutting spending is hard, because someone, somewhere, is going to have to go without, and no politician wants that someone to be in his district.[/quote]
What a trifecta! Condescension, stating the obvious, and not actually addressing any of my points! I'd give up completely now since you seem to have no intention of doing anything other than sighing at me and stating that the Earth is round, but I'm still curious as to what the "vendor" stuff was all about.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1674536' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.37']What a trifecta! Condescension, stating the obvious, and not actually addressing any of my points! I'd give up completely now since you seem to have no intention of doing anything other than sighing at me and stating that the Earth is round, but I'm still curious as to what the "vendor" stuff was all about.[/quote]

You said none of the tax breaks and giveaways you mentioned upthread would do any good, and I pointed out that, for some people/industries, they would. That doesn't necessarily make them good policy, but to act as if they're just moronic is...just moronic. You say my observations are self-evident, but you sure don't seem to understand them.

I'll spell out the vendor thing. A vendor is one who provides goods/services, right? Those who make movies require certain goods and services. When those who make movies have more money, they buy more goods and services. The vendors who provide those goods and services to movie folks then make more money. They'll use some of this money to hire staff and buy more materials. Therefore, a tax break for movie producers helps a certain slice of the economy. Again, you may not think that's necessary, but I suspect those who work in the film industry would disagree.

Hopefully I got through this time, because without hand puppets I'm not sure I can make this any clearer.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1674570' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.18']You said none of the tax breaks and giveaways you mentioned upthread would do any good, and I pointed out that, for some people/industries, they would. That doesn't necessarily make them good policy, but to act as if they're just moronic is...just moronic. You say my observations are self-evident, but you sure don't seem to understand them.[/quote]
I never said they wouldn't do any good. I never said they were moronic. I have serious doubts about them being necessary and/or the best use of that money to stimulate the economy at this time.

I understand your self-evident statements perfectly well.

You still did not address my points on the furniture or the hybrid cars. But, don't bother. I've wasted enough time with you on this. Thankfully, there's an entire thread devoted to this discussion where it's being discussed in a mature and useful manner.

[quote]I'll spell out the vendor thing. A vendor is one who provides goods/services, right? Those who make movies require certain goods and services. When those who make movies have more money, they buy more goods and services. The vendors who provide those goods and services to movie folks then make more money. They'll use some of this money to hire staff and buy more materials. Therefore, a tax break for movie producers helps a certain slice of the economy. Again, you may not think that's necessary, but I suspect those who work in the film industry would disagree.[/quote]
OK. Classic trickle down economics. In a niche market. I still don't feel stupid about questioning the necessity here.

[quote]Hopefully I got through this time, because without hand puppets I'm not sure I can make this any clearer.[/quote]
And hopefully, whatever problems you have that cause you to act so superior will be taken care of.

[Crazydog7]

I don't think that Nancy is the only one we need look no further then our brother's across the sea.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0[/url]

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1674634' date='Feb 5 2009, 01.10']I don't think that Nancy is the only one we need look no further then our brother's across the sea.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0[/url][/quote]

As much as I'd love to see Bush's reaction to a Congress full of sneering catcalls after he stumbled over a few words, thank god we don't have that sort of shit here. Sure we shelter our politicians far too much from direct, in your face criticism and have an overabundance of neutered diplospeak coming from every elected official, but that's got to be preferable to an entire legislature of unruly, disrespectful children. I mean what plausible purpose could an entire chamber of fratboys hooting and hollering every time the opposition speaks serve? Is that really dignified or statesmanlike?

[Shryke]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674647' date='Feb 5 2009, 02.33']As much as I'd love to see Bush's reaction to a Congress full of sneering catcalls after he stumbled over a few words, thank god we don't have that sort of shit here. Sure we shelter our politicians far too much from direct, in your face criticism and have an overabundance of neutered diplospeak coming from every elected official, but that's got to be preferable to an entire legislature of unruly, disrespectful children. I mean what plausible purpose could an entire chamber of fratboys hooting and hollering every time the opposition speaks serve? Is that really dignified or statesmanlike?[/quote]

The point of it is "Statesmanlyness" is generally a codename for not calling bullshit, bullshit.

Parliments work on the idea of any member being able to stand up and tell another member of Parliement that they are full of shit.

Though technically, you actually inform the Speaker of the House that the other member of Parliment is full of shit, but that's just semantics.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1674708' date='Feb 5 2009, 03.34']The point of it is "Statesmanlyness" is generally a codename for not calling bullshit, bullshit.

Parliments work on the idea of any member being able to stand up and tell another member of Parliement that they are full of shit.

Though technically, you actually inform the Speaker of the House that the other member of Parliment is full of shit, but that's just semantics.[/quote]

That's all well and good, but the lone requirements for a speaker being full of shit are A: Being of the opposition party and B: talking. It kind of neuters the desired effect. Its perfunctory, redundant, and annoying. Everyone knows the loyal opposition would erupt like a bunch of shit flinging monkey's if the other guys said the world is round, so its pretty much meaningless at this point.

There are much more mature, civil, and productive ways to call bullshit. Hell, you can even do it within the framework of British Parliament...simply save the catcalls for when the opposition speaker actually is saying utter bullshit. But no, they're content to drive it into the ground.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

Oh, come on man. "Question time" is the true origin point of "Reality TV."

[TrackerNeil]

Argh...never mind.

[Ser Aardvark]

My dad loves watching the PMQ every week. He constantly complains that, even though it would be gross violation of tradition, it would be great TV and get people paying more attention to C-Span if nothing else.

[Slick Mongoose]

[quote name='Ser Aardvark' post='1674948' date='Feb 5 2009, 14.32']My dad loves watching the PMQ every week. He constantly complains that, even though it would be gross violation of tradition, it would be great TV and get people paying more attention to C-Span if nothing else.[/quote]

Yeah, because so many millions watch BBC parliament.

[Ser Aardvark]

[url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965IOJ00&show_article=1"]Ginsburg diagnosed with pancreatic cancer[/url]. I predict her retirement by the end of the month at the latest. Before people get excited, though, Obama and the Dems replacing her will very likely amount to replacing one liberal with another liberal so it wont' really change the dynamic of the court too much.

[GoN]

[quote]Yeah, because so many millions watch BBC parliament.[/quote]

It's not as good to nap to as C-SPAN. :(

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Ser Aardvark' post='1675174' date='Feb 5 2009, 13.17'][url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965IOJ00&show_article=1"]Ginsburg diagnosed with pancreatic cancer[/url]. I predict her retirement by the end of the month at the latest. Before people get excited, though, Obama and the Dems replacing her will very likely amount to replacing one liberal with another liberal so it wont' really change the dynamic of the court too much.[/quote]

Actually, [url="http://www.slate.com/id/2210361/"]Dahlia Lithwick[/url] would disagree.

[Maltaran]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1674708' date='Feb 5 2009, 09.34']Though technically, you actually inform the Speaker of the House that the other member of Parliment is full of shit, but that's just semantics.[/quote]

Actually, using the word "shit" would be considered unparliamentary language, unless it's a debate regarding sewer systems. You would say that your honourable friend is being economical with the truth.

[Ser Aardvark]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1675216' date='Feb 5 2009, 13.50']Actually, [url="http://www.slate.com/id/2210361/"]Dahlia Lithwick[/url] would disagree.[/quote]
Good article. Like or hate his ideas (and I'm sure the majority of borders here hate his ideas) Scalia delivers opinions that are both forceful and easily read and understood, even to non-policy wonks. Having worked for years with a multitude of PhDs, JDs, lawyers, and other scholarly types, I've concluded that very smart very educated fall in two general camps. One have been in academic/scholarly/governmental setting so long that it's hard for them to coherently order a meal at a McDonalds unless the cashier has, at least, a bachelor's degree in whatever field they're in, let alone communicate about highly complex and detailed issues to the general populace. The other, and this is the kind I respect and is far too rare, are people who can explain these issues in enough everyday language that almost anyone can understand it easily enough. Scalia is very much in the latter camp and getting a liberal version of him on the court is a great idea.

For instance, here's one of my favorite exerts from a Scalia [url="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf"]opinion[/url]: "Indeed, reading the lower court’s opinion, one gets the impression that respondent, rather than fleeing from police, was attempting to pass his driving test..." is much more interesting, and understandable, than saying: "The lower court's opinion appears to be based on the invalid observation, upon review of the video tape, that the respondent was operating his vehicle in a manner that would be considered conducive to the relatively safety to the other occupants of the road."

[Shryke]

[quote name='Maltaran' post='1675217' date='Feb 5 2009, 13.51']Actually, using the word "shit" would be considered unparliamentary language, unless it's a debate regarding sewer systems. You would say that your honourable friend is being economical with the truth.[/quote]

:lol:

Parliment is a hoot a watch. They get so creative.

[DanteGabriel]

Republican Rep Pete Sessions thinks the GOP Congressional contingent needs to start organizing themselves into an effective insurgency... like the Taliban.

[quote name='Hotline article']"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."[/quote]
[url="http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/02/sessions_gop_in.php"]http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/a...ions_gop_in.php[/url]

Now... cast yourself back five or six years. Does anyone seriously think a Democrat could have said something like this about the Republicans' strong-arming tactics or their plans for a [s]Thousand Year Reich[/s] permanent majority and [i]not[/i] committed political suicide?

Rep Pete Sessions is an America-hating traitor! Rush Limbaugh, who publicly wished for Obama to fail, is a traitor! Traitors and terrorist-lovers, the lot of them.

[Commodore]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06cia.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print"]Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation[/url]

[quote]WASHINGTON — Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules issued last month.

Under insistent questioning from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.

“If we had a ticking bomb situation, and obviously, whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need,” Mr. Panetta said in his nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.[/quote]

How is this any different than the last administration?