World Politics

[The Hitch]

red handed. was that intentional?

No it wasnt intentional but good point. We ought to take our hat off to red for all the tea party protestors,small time Republicans and tv/radio personalities he has caught red handed in his year on this thread.

He shouldnt feel so upset just because Scott managed to catch a person of actual political importance at his first attempt

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry Scott, only Barrus can hut my one feeling.

Wasn't trying to hurt feelings. Just reacting to your pejoritive statement.

I'm not big on the whole passive/aggressive thing.

 

[flicker]

Wasn't trying to hurt feelings. Just reacting to your pejoritive statement.

I'm not big on the whole passive/aggressive thing.

Back when I was allowed to travel, I visited Washington DC.
The vibe there from the government was so dirty not even a thousand showers at one of Lance's Texas mansions could cleanse me.

 

[patricknd]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42897871/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/?GT1=43001

am i being insensitive or is this the stupidest crap ever?

 

[VeloCity]

Nancy Pelosi, Sept 7, 2006




Nancy Pelosi, May 2, 2011

What is she supposed to say? Hey, great, we got him but it's way too late, doesn't matter now?

All politicians "modify" their views to match up with changing events - 8 or 9 years years ago GW Bush said that finding bin Laden was no longer a priority, it wasn't a big deal, probably because they couldn't find him. Think he'd be dumb enough to be saying that publicly today?

 

[Anonymous]

What is she supposed to say? Hey, great, we got him but it's way too late, doesn't matter now?

All politicians "modify" their views to match up with changing events - 8 or 9 years years ago GW Bush said that finding bin Laden was no longer a priority, it wasn't a big deal, probably because they couldn't find him. Think he'd be dumb enough to be saying that publicly today?

Re-read the quotes.

Her first quote was made during the Bush Admin. The second under Obama.

The second quote is perfectly appropriate. How about the first? Can you imagine her having said that under a democratic administration? Uh, no. Playing politics with every breath she takes.

So, my real question is which of her quotes does she, herself, believe? I'm guessing the first.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What is she supposed to say? Hey, great, we got him but it's way too late, doesn't matter now?

All politicians "modify" their views to match up with changing events - 8 or 9 years years ago GW Bush said that finding bin Laden was no longer a priority, it wasn't a big deal, probably because they couldn't find him. Think he'd be dumb enough to be saying that publicly today?

OH let Scott have his fun, he has found something that reinforces his agenda of ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD AND DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS ARE THE WORST. He will not back down, he never does.

 

[Anonymous]

OH let Scott have his fun, he has found something that reinforces his agenda of ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD AND DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS ARE THE WORST. He will not back down, he never does.

Just call 'em like I see 'em.

This comment must be compared with your agenda of ALL CAPITALISM IS BAD AND REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE THE WORST. Don't really remember you ever having backed down either.

You've even taken to disagreeing on the beer thread (which I previously had thought, because of the subject matter, to be impossible).

 

[Merckx index]

Nancy Pelosi, Sept 7, 2006

Even if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more
damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.

Nancy Pelosi, May 2, 2011

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. ... I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. ... The death of Osama bin Laden is historic....

In the first quote, Pelosi says that capturing him now won’t make us any safer—a point more or less reiterated by many pundits when discussing the assassination. Obama himself emphasized that it wouldn’t stop terrorist acts. Pelosi also says that capturing him wouldn’t undo what he did, an even more obvious point.

In the second quote, Pelosi says nothing about being safer, or damage being undone. She says the death is “significant” and “historic”. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with this.

Yes, Pelosi emphasized one notion, a somewhat negative one, in the first quote, and another notion, a positive one, in the second quote. But the two notions are not inconsistent, and one could argue that each emphasis was appropriate given the time and the context.

For her it's not about what's right or wrong. It's about expediency and winning. Government is her religion.

Can you name any elected official in America for whom that doesn’t apply much if not most of the time? As a leader of her party, Pelosi is put in a position where she has to be somewhat more focussed on expediency and winning than most of the rank-and-file. It's the nature of her job to put the interests of the Democratic Party ahead of most everything else. Our system of government not only can survive that, it is set up to benefit from it. Criticizing her for doing this is sort of like criticizing a lawyer for completely supporting the interests of his client. The idea is that what will ultimately emerge is bigger than any of the individual players and their individual interests.

I’m not an especially big fan of Pelosi. But 99% of all political discussions/arguments seems to involve one side accusing someone on the other side of doing something that is done every bit as frequently by those on the first side. If you don’t like the policies Pelosi advocates, fine. But trying to find inconsistencies in politicians’ statements is a tired old game. All it proves is that old saw that we see others’ faults far more perceptively than we see our own.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Just call 'em like I see 'em.

This comment must be compared with your agenda of ALL CAPITALISM IS BAD AND REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE THE WORST. Don't really remember you ever having backed down either.

You've even taken to disagreeing on the beer thread (which I previously had thought, because of the subject matter, to be impossible).

Sorry, but I found your argument that all beer is good at least as indefensible as your argument that all government is bad.

 

[Anonymous]

Nancy Pelosi, Sept 7, 2006


Nancy Pelosi, May 2, 2011



In the first quote, Pelosi says that capturing him now won’t make us any safer—a point more or less reiterated by many pundits when discussing the assassination. Obama himself emphasized that it wouldn’t stop terrorist acts. Pelosi also says that capturing him wouldn’t undo what he did, an even more obvious point.

In the second quote, Pelosi says nothing about being safer, or damage being undone. She says the death is “significant” and “historic”. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with this.

Yes, Pelosi emphasized one notion, a somewhat negative one, in the first quote, and another notion, a positive one, in the second quote. But the two notions are not inconsistent, and one could argue that each emphasis was appropriate given the time and the context.



Can you name any elected official in America for whom that doesn’t apply much if not most of the time? As a leader of her party, Pelosi is put in a position where she has to be somewhat more focussed on expediency and winning than most of the rank-and-file. It's the nature of her job to put the interests of the Democratic Party ahead of most everything else. Our system of government not only can survive that, it is set up to benefit from it. Criticizing her for doing this is sort of like criticizing a lawyer for completely supporting the interests of his client. The idea is that what will ultimately emerge is bigger than any of the individual players and their individual interests.

I’m not an especially big fan of Pelosi. But 99% of all political discussions/arguments seems to involve one side accusing someone on the other side of doing something that is done every bit as frequently by those on the first side. If you don’t like the policies Pelosi advocates, fine. But trying to find inconsistencies in politicians’ statements is a tired old game. All it proves is that old saw that we see others’ faults far more perceptively than we see our own.

Can you name any elected official in America for whom that doesn’t apply much if not most of the time?

No I can't. Which is why I am highly doubtful of government being the solution to most of our problems.

The problem with Pelosi is that she set legislation in motion either by advancing it or killing it.

This is but one of a long line of Pelosi-isms. 'Elections shouldn't matter as much as the do' (Tufts University speech) or the infamous 'we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it'...

Her first quote that I posted was designed to insulate their side as an offensive strategy. The second quote was one of expediency. She's taking credit for something she had, in year's prior, discounted. All this from one of the most prominent and powerful 'leaders' in the US government.

So what? Eh, so what....

 

[redtreviso]

OH let Scott have his fun, he has found something that reinforces his agenda of ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD AND DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS ARE THE WORST. He will not back down, he never does.

You gotta excuse scott.. It has been a rough few days for Republicans.

 

[VeloCity]

Re-read the quotes.

Her first quote was made during the Bush Admin. The second under Obama.

The second quote is perfectly appropriate. How about the first? Can you imagine her having said that under a democratic administration? Uh, no. Playing politics with every breath she takes.

So, my real question is which of her quotes does she, herself, believe? I'm guessing the first.

Which is exactly what I said. All politicians - not just Nancy Pelosi - modify their views to match the prevailing political climate.

Can you imagine all of those conservatives giving President Clinton any credit if Osama had been killed during the Bush administration, as they are demanding that Bush be given credit during the Obama administration? Course not.

Sarah Palin didn't even mention Obama in a recent speech about bin Laden's death, giving all credit to the military and to George Bush's policies. Think she would've done that if a Republican was currently president?

Playing politics with every breath they take.

 

[Cobblestones]

Pelosi is detested because she is one of the most effective Democrats in Congress since ... I can't remember. Every agenda item of the Obama campaign and the Democratic party, she was able to move through the house. Often several times when the Senate came back with changes.

She even fought bills through the house which were controversial in the Democratic party (and had no chance in the Senate). If you think of her as an executive, you have to admire her leadership qualities. You might argue that forcing through some of the more controversial stuff with no chance of success in the Senate might have cost the House in the end, but that's a point of strategy which I don't think was decided solely by her.

Of course this effectiveness made her the target of the opposing side. But deep inside, the Republicans would love to have a speaker with equal qualities. All they got is Boehner. It must be very hard for them.

 

[Anonymous]

Which is exactly what I said. All politicians - not just Nancy Pelosi - modify their views to match the prevailing political climate.

Can you imagine all of those conservatives giving President Clinton any credit if Osama had been killed during the Bush administration, as they are demanding that Bush be given credit during the Obama administration? Course not.

Sarah Palin didn't even mention Obama in a recent speech about bin Laden's death, giving all credit to the military and to George Bush's policies. Think she would've done that if a Republican was currently president?

Playing politics with every breath they take.

Okay...

For the last thousand pages or so Klink, aka Redtreviso, has had a running commentary on how bad the political right is NEVER acknowledging any issues whatsoever on the left.

You are late to the party, which is fine. I'm glad you are here. But there is some context to this that you may not already know.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Pelosi is detested because she is one of the most effective Democrats in Congress since ... I can't remember. Every agenda item of the Obama campaign and the Democratic party, she was able to move through the house. Often several times when the Senate came back with changes.

She even fought bills through the house which were controversial in the Democratic party (and had no chance in the Senate). If you think of her as an executive, you have to admire her leadership qualities. You might argue that forcing through some of the more controversial stuff with no chance of success in the Senate might have cost the House in the end, but that's a point of business strategy which I don't think was decided solely by her.

Of course this effectiveness made her the target of the opposing side. But deep inside, the Republicans would love to have a speaker with equal qualities. All they got is Boehner. It must be very hard for them.

http://youtu.be/BxuCeHUxoBY

 

[Oldman]

http://youtu.be/BxuCeHUxoBY

It is turgidly hard for them. Rush, Hannity and Glenn wish they could put up that kind of stance.

 

[redtreviso]

Conservative media bias..Bush Officials Outnumber Obama 6 to 1 On Sunday Shows

""Do you notice anything odd about that guest list? The Sunday morning talk shows are going to feature, Bush’s former, Sec. of Homeland Security (Chertoff), Bush’s former CIA director (Hayden), Bush’s former vice president (Cheney), Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld), Bush’s former Sec of State (Rice), and former Deputy Asst. Sec of State (Liz Cheney). Other Republicans on the shows will be Tom Davis, Rudy Giuliani, and **** Luger.

The current members of the Obama administration featured on the Sunday morning shows total one Obama’s National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. Anita Dunn and John Kerry are the only two other Democrats that will be featured.

There will be more authors on the Sunday morning talk shows (2, Ricks and Wright) than there will be Obama administration officials (1, Donilon).

What do Democrats have to do to get booked on the Sunday morning talk shows? A Democratic president got Osama Bin Laden, and the media spends Sunday morning talking with six members of the previous administration that failed to get the job done. These are the same people who gave up looking for Bin Laden, and let him live in luxury in ****stan. Yet the mainstream media has decided to mark the occasion by hosting **** Cheney and a roster full of Bush administration officials.

Why?""

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-conservative-media-bias

 

[Anonymous]

Liberal media bias.

Anyone else aware of this this?? Eh, no big deal if you are NBC, CBS, ABC or MSNBC... CNN.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a majority of seats in Parliament for the first time, giving him a mandate to fund corporate and personal income tax cuts with curbs on spending.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-03/harper-s-conservatives-to-win-canadian-election-ctv-television-projects.html


Canadian Popular vote map....

 

[redtreviso]

Liberal media bias.

Anyone else aware of this this?? Eh, no big deal if you are NBC, CBS, ABC or MSNBC... CNN.





Canadian Popular vote map....

and they all read aloud from Atlas Shrugs and throw in a "eh?" between paragraphs ...woooo hooooo!!!

 

[Cobblestones]

Liberal media bias.

Anyone else aware of this this?? Eh, no big deal if you are NBC, CBS, ABC or MSNBC... CNN.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-03/harper-s-conservatives-to-win-canadian-election-ctv-television-projects.html


Canadian Popular vote map....

Seriously, Canada? Who ever cared aboot that?

 

[Anonymous]

Seriously, Canada? Who ever cared aboot that?

Hoser. Beauty, Eh??

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ron Paul

"If you have not been paying attention, it is time to look around and realize that we are living in the political age of Rep. Ron Paul. " -Juan Williams

thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/159863-ron-paul-driving-the-republican-campaign

Obama v. Paul: Why Ron Paul is the Republicans’ Top Prospect for Winning the Presidency in 2012

 

[Cobblestones]

"If you have not been paying attention, it is time to look around and realize that we are living in the political age of Rep. Ron Paul. " -Juan Williams

thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/159863-ron-paul-driving-the-republican-campaign

Obama v. Paul: Why Ron Paul is the Republicans’ Top Prospect for Winning the Presidency in 2012

Not sure myself. It looks to me that the republican party is a mix of Ron-Paul type libertarian elements with lots of 'big government' social issues. I understand where Ron Paul is coming from (I disagree with his position), but at least he seems to take a laissez-faire approach for economic and social issues. The latter makes him unelectable in many red states.

The successful candidate for the republicans needs to bring together fairly extreme libertarian positions concerning taxes, spending and the economy in general, while at the same time being socially ultra conservative and heavy handed when it comes to gay marriage, DADT, abortion etc.

This seems to be an intellectual feat which eludes anybody with enough brain to realize the virtual impossibility of it. Hence the only candidates so far are intellectual dwarves like Trump, Bachman, Palin etc. and some unelectables like Ron Paul who, I assume, simply wants a platform to get his message out.

Really, I don't keep track who has declared, semi-declared or who was simply fired by Fox News. Apparently Gingrich is running, too, now? He seems to have forgotten why he isn't speaker any more.

Wiki to the rescue. This is worse than I thought. I consider myself relatively well aware of American politics, but look at the list of declared candidates. Those might be decent guys, but the only one I might recognize based on name and photo is the 'the rent is too damned high'-guy, and only because he's fairly ... distinctive.

So I look at the 'exploring' candidates and it looks much better, but the only two who have name recognition and seem electable are Pawlenty and Romney. Romney could pull off the 'economy expert' and 'social conservative' double, but he's a mormon and has his own 'Obamacare-gate' in Mass. Neither will play well with a significant subclass of Republican voters. Pawlenty seems a viable candidate but he's drowning right now among the shrill voices of the crazies. I didn't watch the Fox News debate, but that seems to be the consensus reporting. Actually reading through what I wrote above, it seems that neither Trump, Palin, nor Bachmann are even exploring at this point. And still they're drowning everybody else. In that category, John Bolton is one of the saner choices, and that really tells you everything.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The successful candidate for the republicans needs to bring together fairly extreme libertarian positions concerning taxes, spending and the economy in general, while at the same time being socially ultra conservative and heavy handed when it comes to gay marriage, DADT, abortion etc.

First, I don't agree with the part in bold. That might be necessary to win the most delegates in some Republican primaries and caucuses, but it's not an absolute requirement in enough states to make a requirement to win the nomination. Bush Sr was not as socially conservative as his GOP opponents, like Buchanan, and neither was Dole (1996) or McCain.

Second, Ron Paul is pretty socially conservative; he just doesn't want to see the federal government regulating behavior that has no victims (which is why he does not oppose gay marriage, favors ending the drug war, etc.)

This seems to be an intellectual feat which eludes anybody with enough brain to realize the virtual impossibility of it. Hence the only candidates so far are intellectual dwarves like Trump, Bachman, Palin etc. and some unelectables like Ron Paul who, I assume, simply wants a platform to get his message out.

Really, I don't keep track who has declared, semi-declared or who was simply fired by Fox News. Apparently Gingrich is running, too, now? He seems to have forgotten why he isn't speaker any more.

I think/hope you'll be surprised.

Wiki to the rescue. This is worse than I thought. I consider myself relatively well aware of American politics, but look at the list of declared candidates. Those might be decent guys, but the only one I might recognize based on name and photo is the 'the rent is too damned high'-guy, and only because he's fairly ... distinctive.

So I look at the 'exploring' candidates and it looks much better, but the only two who have name recognition and seem electable are Pawlenty and Romney. Romney could pull off the 'economy expert' and 'social conservative' double, but he's a mormon and has his own 'Obamacare-gate' in Mass. Neither will play well with a significant subclass of Republican voters. Pawlenty seems a viable candidate but he's drowning right now among the shrill voices of the crazies. I didn't watch the Fox News debate, but that seems to be the consensus reporting. Actually reading through what I wrote above, it seems that neither Trump, Palin, nor Bachmann are even exploring at this point. And still they're drowning everybody else. In that category, John Bolton is one of the saner choices, and that really tells you everything.

I think Ron Paul has a chance for the reasons cited in the articles I cited. Also, I think at first the mainstream candidates like Romney and Pawlenty will divide that vote, and Paul will be competitive, much moreso than four years ago. I wouldn't put much money on him pulling off the nomination, but I wouldn't bet much against it either.

A lot depends on the economy. At this point Paul is turning out to be prescient, and the Fed has its back against the wall with interest rates as low as they are. This makes the hyperinflation Paul has been predicting (unprecedented in U.S. history) quite likely. That could work against Mitt RomneyCare and Pawlenty as well as against Obama.