The writer of "Apocalypse Now"? He ought to know. After all, he is definitely a writer well acquainted with garbage scripts. Not that Dirty Harry smelled all that sweet either.
Milius is one of my favorite directors, esp. for Conan the Barbarian. He's also a writer and executive producer for the HBO series Rome. Nobody is making red-blooded movies like he used to.
"I was watching Rush Limbaugh the other night, and I was horrified. I would have Rush Limbaugh drawn and quartered. He was sticking up for these Wall Street pigs. There should be public show trials, mass denunciations and executions."
Not to mention that "Apocalypse Now" was an amoral mess with cardboard "conservative" characters who actually loved war.
Of course all he's doing is quoting Theodore Sturgeon: "90% of Science Fiction is crap! Of course, 90% of everything is crap".
From this article and others I've read I'm sure Milius would be the first one to give fair attribution (as he did for the Gengis Kahn quote from Conana), but I doubt the CNN reporter even recognized it.
He's also up for election to the NRA board this year. I'm not at all sure if I want to vote for a right-wing populist who wants people who believe in economic freedom to be "drawn and quartered".
It might explain the shocker of his not getting re-elected last year, and instead getting a special appointment. At least that's how I remember it. If someone (Sebastian, Bitter) has the details on that, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Well, anyone who questions Herr Limbaugh these days...to your knees or to the gallows!
"people who believe in economic freedom to be "drawn and quartered"."
Economic Freedom...(propaganda)defined as turning a blind eye to criminals (no different from the ones normally bitched about by the right) and then excusing their acts while framing them as victims of government over regulation. That kind of freedom?
I don't agree with everything Milius talks about but he is a great writer (loved Conan, Apocalypse, and Rome) and is dead on with this one. If people on Wall Street (and the people like Rush who defend them) actually were punished for their crimes, we'd probably be much better off.
BTW Marky, it's ironic that you posted your slander just as Kevin has been writing about Honor.
Though I haven't Bowman's Honor: A History I'm pretty sure that impugning a man's honor with such an outrageous falsehood would earned a duel. Aren't you glad it isn't possible today?
Though I haven't read Bowman's Honor: A History, I'm pretty sure that impugning a man's honor with such an outrageous falsehood would have immediately earned you a duel.
I stopped being interested in his responses long ago. I'm more interested to see the resident crack team of Reich wing clue-by-four wielders curb stomp his stupidity.
And then I stand amazed on how darn smart they are and how Marky likes the abuse. Or ignores it!
Please tell me you're joking. The fascists didn't care much for truth any more than Marky does. Though we weren't around for that time period, I suspect that most of us would have been just as opposed to the Nazis' shenanigans, even without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as we are to Mark's.
It's an absurdist term, making fun of Marky's limited world view, his distorted understanding of conservatives and his weak understanding of history and current events.
And I certainly hope that if we were transplanted in history, we'd adhere to the same principles as we do now.
Of course, we're still waiting for Marky to give us his imaginary point by point ideological comparison between fascists and conservatives to back up his absurd claim that we're the same.
I perceived his tongue-in-cheek right from the get-go, Ed. I was born only seven years after the Nazis were stomped into line, and my father was a Nazi stomper with the US Army. How could I not be a history buff, and how could I not see his joke?
But, given his past history, I think we shall be waiting like Estragon and Vladimir.
VLADIMIR:
One can bide one's time.
ESTRAGON:
One knows what to expect.
VLADIMIR:
No further need to worry.
ESTRAGON:
Simply wait.
VLADIMIR:
We're used to it.
True, Sarah, but it's too bad he really doesn't participate.
DJ: Yup. Crazy Uncle Marky (twice removed) might be fun to bring out for parties, but cleaning up the mess he makes on the carpet isn't fun.
U-J: I'm thinking he likes to wait until the post slides off the front page. Or he just ignores it. Or the programmer of the "Marky Script" is retooling it for all now mindless blather.
"1.) Who committed a crime? Name any company and its executive officers who committed any crime and which law or laws they violated."
Bear Stearns, Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi both of whom have been arrested for fraud which is a good thing but any guesses as to how little time if any they will serve?
And how about Richard Marin? He was a senior executive at Bear Stearns who was replaced for "mismanaging" hedge funds but never arrested. CEO James Cayne and co President Warren Spector, who also later resigned, knew that the funds value were much less than what they led their investors to believe. Again, that's fraud and both are still walking free.
How about another one for a bonus round? Bill Mcguire, United Health Care, backdating stock options, currently enjoying a half a billion dollars in compensation. But hey...all us liberals like to punish the successful, right?
"2.) This entire economic problem would be well on its way to being fixed if the companies that screwed the pooch hadn't been bailed out by the .gov"
How do you know this? I'm not saying I disagree with you but the top economic minds in this country have no idea what to do so why do you? I think the time for thinking outside of the box has to begin now and falling back on the "it's all the government's fault" meme is not going to help. Neither is cutting taxes for the top five percent. Look at how well that worked.
"3.) I'm sorry, but I can't get onboard with someone who advocates "public show trials" for anyone. It sounds like something out of the Soviet Union."
You are right. I wouldn't want that either and that would be where Milius and I part ways. They do need to be punished, though, and they aren't. Instead, they get large payouts and a pat on the back.
"making fun of Marky's limited world view"
OK...seriously...now THAT is now officially the funniest thing I have heard on this blog. Again, Russell, what are the inherent flaws of conservative ideology and free market economics? And how did we see them play out in this latest economic crisis?
(A)t the heart of conservatism is an ongoing, unresolvable dialectic between freedom and virtue. In other words, there is a bedrock belief in the idea that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources and to create wealth and prosperity for all, but a frank acknowledgment that, without a virtuous populace, the system may produce a self-centered, materialistic citizenry living in a sort of degenerate, "pitiable comfort." Thus, there is an ongoing, unresolvable tension between the libertarian and traditional wings of the movement.
That's pretty much spot-on.
So was this:
There is no such dynamic tension in liberalism. Rather, it is a top-down dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
Again, Russell, what are the inherent flaws of conservative ideology and free market economics? And how did we see them play out in this latest economic crisis?
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as the free market in anything under discussion, Kevin was (very) generous (and IMO mistaken to) enough to answer you thoroughly.
You who left all sorts of questions unanswered here.
Also notable was the type of question asked. You asked a quasi-rhetorical question in an attempt to salvage your worldview, the questions in the thread (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) that you ignore/d were meant to actually find common ground.
DJ has quite accurately described your "debating method", where you ignore questions, and at the "end" try and stump us with a gotcha question with no relationship to the subject. Much like how you can't understand and separate why I point to proof that Krugman is not a place to honestly debate from any opinion I (didn't) express on his policies and columns.
Kevin's now answered your question. Hows about you fucking manning up and answering ours, to quote someone who said something like that recently...
Or at least have the good grace to learn how to say "I was wrong."
It's not weakness to admit that, and mean it. It's really not.
You seemed to skip right over this comment:
"I should add to point 1 above, name the company that committed a crime that it is not being punished for ALREADY."
If the other companies you mentioned have committed a crime, why isn't the Democratic Attorney General of New York or the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, indicting and prosecuting them.
Because maybe, they haven't committed an actual crime, just questionable business practices.
That gets me to my second point. If the .gov didn't bail these companies out, then the company officers would be answerable to the stockholders and the board. If the entire company is rotten, then it would go bankrupt.
Like Citibank should have. If enough companies go bankrupt then maybe their successors might just think twice before doing shady business practices like bundling, etc. But they knew from the getgo that Uncle Sam would keep them safe and thus had little reason to invest wisely.
I'm sorry, Mark, perhaps if you'd learn the proper role of words, meaning, logic (just syllogistic would be fine), history, basic psychology, basic economics, basic rules of debate, basic conservative principles, honor, respect for those on the other side of the issue in someone's parlor, the ability to assess data originating from different sources, the ability to understand the basic outlines of an argument, and understand when and why your responses to said arguments are stamped with FAIL, have a basic understanding of Western Civilization starting back with Greeks and rolling on up to our current place in the world stage, some familiarity with the big three Greek thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), with a modicum of understanding of different types of governments, how they work, were the power lies and why, read at least the Cliff Notes to Hume, Locke, and the Founding Fathers, a good dash European History and maybe the slightest glimmering of self awareness, then maybe we could have a discussion.
But as it stands, no.
And your repeating of "the funniest thing I have heard on this blog" is just getting old. Either your bar for funny is set really low, or your memory is failing faster than we thought.
Yosemite, I agree with you. And perhaps Citi should be allowed to fail. In addition, there are plenty of Democrats that turn a blind eye as well to their pals in business, as is the case in New York. This is not necessarily a party thing. The view on the right, however, that people who are wealthy are being "punished" for being successful is ludicrous. If these companies are in such dire straits, why are their CEOs walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars?
Kevin, your first quote is great. You, in fact, are the "one person" that I spoke of in regards to being reflective-ideologically speaking. Sadly, I see that the others here consider being reflective as "generous."
And likely with will always be "no", Russell. Remember, this is someone who statedto a scientist, as I quote here [snark]verbatim[/snark],
"And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."
You won't have a discussion with him. You can write more words using their real meanings, crafted in logic, about history, psychology, economics, conservative principles, honor, and and so on, and so on, and so on. He will write only from the point of view of a Hollywood director who is filming yet another make-believe epic in which reality really and truly is what he imagines it to be. He will not see the little man behind the curtain. He is only a little boy who stands in front of the screen, awestruck at the pretty pictures. He is as incurable as he is unreachable.
Sadly, I see that the others here consider being reflective as "generous."
No, as amply explained, the "generous" part was answering the question of the person who is noted for refusing to answer questions.
Or for even admitting gross errors in his own view and outlook, amply and easily demonstrated.
That's generous. Not that he answered the question, but he answered it when you asked.
Checked on what "verbatim" means yet? Or what the ideals of libertarianism are yet? No? Oh, I'll try and damp my shock.
Remember, this is someone who stated to a scientist, as I quote here [snark]verbatim[/snark],
"And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."
And, as I recall, this was less than 2 weeks after he said that our drive for truth and "black and white" understanding, insistence on facts and sources and proof was insatiable and annoying.
DJ: I'm afraid you hit the nail on the head. And the reflection off the silver screen the little boy mistakes as self reflection.
U-J: Just stop with your right wing language manipulation and your bizarro conservative power of memory! What is being felt right now is more real than anything else, specially things in the dead past!
Funny, he accepts Kevin as being reflective, but disregards Kevin's opinion of, well, the rest of us here in his parlor. Truly, a dizzying intellect!
"And, as I recall, this was less than 2 weeks after he said that our drive for truth and "black and white" understanding, insistence on facts and sources and proof was insatiable and annoying."
Yup, as I noted, he can't remember his lies and he can't rise to his own challenge.
I've been reading through the last couple of threads thrashing Markadelphia. It's like a small boy who continues poking a large tiger with a stick while utterly clueless that said tiger is now gnawing on his arm, and working his way up into the thorax...
The black knight analogy mentioned in one of the earlier threads fits pretty well, too.
You know, I once had a teacher like Mark in the eight grade. She nearly gave me detention during one of her lessons on the Oregon trail because I mentioned that what makes scorpions dangerous was their sting, not their bite, and none of the scorpions found on the Oregon trail were all that poisonous as she had insisted. Facts mattered about as much to her as they do to Mark; they are not to get in the way when (s)he's trying to make a point.
"Economic Freedom...(propaganda)defined as turning a blind eye to criminals (no different from the ones normally bitched about by the right) and then excusing their acts while framing them as victims of government over regulation. That kind of freedom?"
Well let's see, change what they're described as victims of, and that perfectly fits
Frank Raines
Jamie Gorelick
Tim Geithner
Tom Daschle
Al Franken
Barney Frank
Christopher Dodd
Jack Murtha
Al Sharpton
Charles Rangel
So I can't see why you're on Rush about it.
"Bear Stearns, Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi both of whom have been arrested for fraud which is a good thing but any guesses as to how little time if any they will serve?"
More time than anyone on my list I'll bet. At least they got arrested.
"Again, that's fraud and both are still walking free."
See above.
"Neither is cutting taxes for the top five percent. Look at how well that worked."
Would you care to point out a time when cutting taxes failed to raise revenues? The fact that wealthy Democrats don't pay their taxes is beside the point, it still worked. It wasn't tax cuts that caused problems, it was unrestrained spending. Just like is still going on in both parties. At least the actual party leadership on the right has some people who want to rein in spending, the leaders on the left just want to make up a justification for more.
"They do need to be punished, though, and they aren't. Instead, they get large payouts and a pat on the back."
I agree. But as long as they need to be punished, but somehow none of the ones on my list need to be, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.
"The view on the right, however, that people who are wealthy are being "punished" for being successful is ludicrous."
How so? How is taking (taxing) their money for services they do not receive not punishing them? "They should pay more because they can afford it" is just an excuse to justify stealing, Mark. It's ARMED ROBBERY, and that's all it is.
Whether they can afford such continued mugging is beside the point, it doesn't change what it is.
OT, but if you haven't seen this already: Rachel Lucas discusses Brits freaking out over the Alabama shootings and our gun-crazed culture, but not the Germany shootings.
"Would you care to point out a time when cutting taxes failed to raise revenues?"
Umm...how about the last eight years? Bush cut taxes and how well did that work out? The "growth" that was reported was a fucking lie. Which brings me to a comment by Unix earlier in this thread...
"Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as the free market in anything..."
Really? Then explain to me how a bank (pick any of them) "can report 25 straight quarters of profit and then suddenly be bankrupt?" (Dylan Ratigan, CNBC). The fact is that Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton decided to essentially tell regulators to leave the market alone and let it do what it wanted to do. President Bush continued this policy and encouraged no oversight.
Greenspan has since said:
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, were such that they were best able in protecting their own shareholders and the equity in their firms."
Former Treasury Secretary John Snow recently echoed these statements and said that the regulatory officials did not do enough to oversee multiple elements of the banking, financial, and housing industry.
Now Grumpy, I do agree with you that spending is a problem. Take a look at Obama's health plan. He is going to pay for half of it by reducing spending within Medicare and Medicaid. Does he get credit for that or not?
As far as your list goes of people being punished, Charlie Rangel is the one that jumps out at me as the most guilty. He should go to jail. Franken and Geithner both paid their taxes. Barney Frank didn't pay taxes? I realize he is guilty of being the absolute worst person, on a number of levels, to represent a "solution" to the crisis but that's just because he is a doofus.
Last note, since it was brought up by Sara, how long do you suppose it will take for us to find out that Alabama guy was on a SSRI?
Umm...how about the last eight years? Bush cut taxes and how well did that work out?
Tax revenues went up.
Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax revenues have increased $785 billion.
You were saying?
Then explain to me how a bank (pick any of them) "can report 25 straight quarters of profit and then suddenly be bankrupt?"
Explain to me particle physics.
Oh, wait, I can understand that, bad comparison.
Your argument has nothing to do with the lack or presence of regulation. This is exceedingly stupid even for you.
(And, again, don't I get primary source status on regulation in banking and mortgage companies? I've worked for the (at the time) largest growing mortgage company, as a senior engineer, and I've also worked where you don't leave home without it. I can assure you, if they're unregulated, the executives, auditors, and employees don't know that.) (I've never been more audited, lectured, paperworked, checked, double-checked, and lawyer'ed.)
But the regulation or even if there wasn't any has NOTHING to do with the solvency of banks. If they had 25 profitable quarters,and then one where they made nothing, they're going under. Cash flow, even you should be able to look it up. Banks, corporations are about cash flow. Without cash flow, they'll go under. Period. By definition. Which is not related to the amount of "regulation" they're under. (Regulation just increases how much cash they have to have to meet costs.)
The fact is that Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton decided to essentially tell
There's your weasel word. "Essentially tell". So you know you've lost the argument, because the regulations increase by 10% or so per year, and are in excess of 210k pages now. So instead you'll try and argue that Clinton and Greenspan called them on the down low and said "Yo, like, do whatevah!"
President Bush continued this policy and encouraged no oversight.
We can apparently add "policy" "no" and "oversight" to the list of words you know the definitions of, as long as you don't, you know, have to define them. (Which is kind of the definition of definition, really.)
Take a look at Obama's health plan. He is going to pay for half of it by reducing spending within Medicare and Medicaid. Does he get credit for that or not?
No.
For 2 reasons. (Why I tell you reasons, I don't know.)
Wait, for you, 1. Linoleum Aardvark! (Thanks, Stingray). There, that's my rebuttal to you. It's as logical as your arguments. Hell, you probably understand what I'm saying.
For anybody ELSE reading, 1) Because he's already got a really bad track record of not living up to his promises. No, this doesn't come as a surprise, as we predicted this. He made promises that there was no way he was going to be able to keep, as well as mutually-contradictory promises.
2) Because how he cuts it is just as important as what he cuts. That will have to be judged. You're giving him credit for making a promise. Without specifics. What if he decides the best way to cut that money is to, oh, say, cut all women out of Medicaid and Medicare? It's a cut, isn't it? What if his "cut" is to force the Frosts to sell their investment property and house to pay for their own care?
...
You really cannot think through anything. It's amazing. Really is. A promise from the right person is all it takes to convince you, no matter how ludicrous. You can't do any basic research. Meanwhile, you can't even honor your own malaprops and misuse of "theories" when we try them ourselves. (Primary Sources, remember? You know, like you ignore that I'm one of, according to you?)
And you lambast me for being wrong when I describe teachers. Somebody call Alanis! Now this is ironic!
Markadelphia:"Bush cut taxes and how well did that work out? The "growth" that was reported was a fucking lie."
Marky, Marky, Marky. When are you gonna learn that you cannot make pronouncements like that without evidence to back it up? Furthermore, haven't you learned that we know how to fact check you. So here you go:
"Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts."
…
"While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.
"Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated. By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending."
…
"The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre–tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue."
Seriously, Mark. You know the answer to this one by now. How [do] we tell the difference between a false accusation of lies, idiocy and treason, and an accurate accusation?
In both cases, it wasn't "accidental", it was deliberate tax evasion, and I suggest you not attempt it.
In Geithner's case, it was after he filed for and received fraudulent compensation for the "taxes he paid".
But don't worry, Mark. They damn sure think you'd better pay your taxes correctly. No matter how "complicated" those tax forms are.
U-J, Kevin:
In truth, I am expecting Obama to reduce spending. But in true politician style: First, he'll propose a hike in expenses around 200%. Then he'll 'reduce' that by half. And then the happy lickspittles in the MSM will all cry out how The One reduced costs by half!! OMG!!1!.
Then the world will join hands and sing Ku-obama-ya and we will own unicorns that poop rainbows and social justice.
It took me all of about five seconds to Google up a PDF of a letter from the Congressional Budget office to Kent Conrad, comparing 2006 federal tax revenue to 2003.
2003 Individual Income Taxes: 794BN
2006 Individual Income Taxes: 1,044BN
2003 Corporate Income Taxes(1): 132BN
2006 Corporate Income Taxes: 354BN
2003 Other Taxes: 857BN
2006 Other Taxes: 1009BN
2003 Total Revenue: 1,783BN
2006 Total Revenue(2): 2,407BN
Footnotes (mine):
1. Corporate income taxes are actually paid by, you know, individuals, in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Still, we'll play along.
2. Q. E. Duh.
(But Ken, if Chimpy McHitlerBurton hadn't lowered tax rates, revenues would have gone EVEN HIGHER! - or so the "reasoning" goes. - Ed.)
The case of Geithner doesn't amaze me, but it should. The level of incompetence shown by the Anointed DemiGod who appointed him is exceeded only by the one he appointed.
If a newly elected President considers appointing someone to a Cabinet position, what would be a very important question to ask him early on during such considerations? How about, "Is there anything in your history that would embarrass you and/or me if you were vetted by Congress, and if so, is it bad enough that I ought not to appoint you, and/or you ought not to accept?"
Well, consider the incompetence this exhibits on the part of Geithner, particularly in the context of being appointed to be the Secretary of the Treasury, the guy who is responsible for handling the gubmint's money and for collecting the gubmint's revenue (hint to idiots: the IRS reports to HIM): 1) he doesn't know what of his income is taxable and what isn't; 2) he doesn't ask a tax advisor what of his income is taxable and what isn't; 3) he files income tax returns that are incorrect because he doesn't know what of his income is taxable and what isn't; and, 4) he doesn't correct his income tax returns and pay the delinquent taxes until he is exposed during the confirmation process.
Now, consider the incompetence this exhibits on the part of Obama, particularly in this:"Tim Geithner, when I [nominated] him, was rightly lauded by people from both sides of the aisle...as somebody who was uniquely qualified" to handle the economy, Mr. Obama said. "Is this an embarrassment for him? Yes. He said so himself." It raises the steamy question, "Why the hell wasn't this an embarrassment on the part of Obama?"
One might think someone who was "uniquely qualified" to handle the economy would come up with a plan for doing so. But when Geithner stood in front of the cameras to announce the plan, it was very obvious to those who would make decisions based on that plan that there was no plan.
The gumdrops are:
"In what was supposed to be a major announcement of a plan to address the insolvency of numerous banks and financial institutions Mr. Geithner only talked about concepts and ideas.
"Mr. Geithner’s first public statement was a massive failure as measured by the capital markets. Leading up to today’s announcement by Mr. Geithner it was talked up by the Administration that broad sweeping measures, new policies, and new efforts would be announced in a big ’shock and awe’ plan. But there was only shock, shock that there is no plan at all.
"Mr. Geithner’s words communicated to the market that he and his staff still has no plan and his speech communicated that strongly without even saying those exact words.
"The markets sold off very quickly following the release of his speech when it became apparent that they still have no solution to the problems facing the financial system of the United States."
And this is in regards to only ONE appointee for ONE office. The conclusion of the article is still correct:
"Mr. Timmy Geithner… get out while you can. You are not the right man for the job."
Today is the first time since then that the markets have had two up days in a row.
"Year after year, Congress pulls a bait-and-switch on the public that morons like Markadoofus eat up as if it were chocolate. At the beginning of the term, they "project" what the budget will be. Then they pass actual budget bills that are lower than the "projections" and claim that they have "cut the budget". They and the media ignore that the new budget is higher than the old budget, and the sheeple are just too goddamned stupid to notice the sleight-of-hand."
From 8 to 11:30 EDT I'm slotted for my seminar on how to be locked into a rigid belief system that ignores, while being totally subservient to facts and logic. You didn't get your Orders from Rush? Better double-check, you know how mad he gets when he's talking and people aren't listening.
Several years late, only after they were caught and out in the public eye. As if saying "oops" should get you out of breaking the law... but only if your politics are correct, apparently. So why is it that apparently you don't see them as criminals, because they finally got around to complying with the law years late, yet
"Bear Stearns, Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi both of whom have been arrested for fraud which is a good thing but any guesses as to how little time if any they will serve?"
Somehow that seems to be a failure of justice in your mind, even though they did get arrested which is more than happened to Franken or Geithner. Franken and Geithner defrauded the IRS for years, did they not?
Again, that's fraud and both are still walking free.
Who said that?
Instead, they get large payouts and a pat on the back.
Like Tim Geithner, huh?
Barney Frank didn't pay taxes?
I didn't post that list as solely tax cheats, you'll notice. I posted that list of people who had screwed the US government and the American people to the tune of millions or billions, and had been rewarded for same. Will you contend otherwise?
That was a quick and dirty list, right off the top of my head. Yet you'll notice I had no problem coming up with 10 Democrat names, you apparently don't have any real disagreement with my assessment of them as criminals, frauds and con artists.... and half of them are members of "the most ethical Congress ever" and the other half were recently rewarded with "large payouts and a pat on the back" to "the most transparent and accountable Presidency ever".
And yet you claim it's the Republicans who are crooked?
Also, while you're exploring this "Republicans are all capitalist pigs who have no problem with obscene profits in the marketplace" theme, don't forget this part:
Maybe the reason they don't have a problem with obscene profits when things succeed is because they don't have a problem with obscene losses as a result of failure either.
Tim Slagle has nice coverage of the Bill Maher/Ann Coulter debate in Chicago. This part especially caught my attention:
In an argument over whether Reagan won the cold war, Ann claimed that Carter was losing the war so badly, that 37 countries fell to Communism while he was in office. Bill responded, “Oh, another one of your rectum derived statistics?”
Ann flipped out. “What is this a Roman Colosseum? I’m so sick of you pulling that Whoopi Goldberg crap. All you’re proving is that you have a stupid audience that agrees with you.” She was right. Anytime she brought up any statistic that supported her arguments (Like: crime declines after concealed carry passed), the people in the audience would shake their heads in disbelief while Bill mugged it up. It made me realize how much of liberalism has become conventional wisdom.
Remind you of a certain evidence-immune person we all know?
So, an analogy. (Sorry, reading this thread made me think of it.) I play a good bit of basketball. I even managed to play for a year in college - small school, so I'm good enough to judge skill, but not good enough that it would have been reasonable to think I could make a career out of it.
Since then, I play a lot of hoops to stay in shape. There is an interesting phenomenon I have noticed. At every gym I play at, there is always One Guy. One Guy always dresses in the popular hoops style of the day - shirt under a tank top, fashionable shoes, socks pulled all the way up (or down, depending on what players in the NBA are doing.) One Guy also swaggers a bit - he'll talk like he's very knowledgeable about basketball, knows the ins and outs, watches a lot of NBA games to talk about the current goings on.
Yet, when it comes down to playing the game, One Guy is just awful. He bricks shots from every location on the court. He makes horrible decisions - shooting when he's got a defender all over him, passing though areas that are swarming with defending hands. Now, this could just be the work of new player at basketball. Except, One Guy is a special kind of awful. You see, One Guy never gets better. He doesn't possess the self introspection required to say to himself: "hmm, x didn't work very well. Maybe I should try y next time." Which, of course, is how most of us learn something - mess it up a few times until we figure it out better ways to do it. Incredibly, One Guy thinks that he is good. He will talk as though he was the driving force behind a win - even though the win occurred despite of him. He'll actually criticize the mistakes of other people - when his own play is so consistently horrible that any other person with a lick of sense would keep their mouth shut. He'll talk about the one shot he made out of 20 (yes, 5% is about right) and ignore the 19 missed, along with the effect that has on the potential to win.
It has been three years, and nothing has changed. I've tried giving One Guy some friendly advice - ignored. I've given him not so friendly advice, particularly when he's causing my team to lose - ignored. (The most frustrating being when the other team purposefully lets him shoot - knowing that the odds of him missing are quite high. I say to him, "They are letting you shoot. Shouldn't that tell you something?" Apparently not.)
Mark, you are One Guy. You're not just bad at this, you're so bad that you can't even discern that you're bad. And that is the worst thing of all, because it means that you'll never get better. I can take any person and make them a reasonable basketball player, iff they can honestly assess when something they do works versus when it doesn't. You don't seem to possess the wherewithall to do that. It hurts to watch.
Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie's flat and hangs him out the window] I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
-----
Golly. Sometimes the movies imitate real life, don't they?
"One might think someone who was "uniquely qualified" to handle the economy [i.e. Timmy Geithner] would come up with a plan for [stabilizing the banking system]. But when Geithner stood in front of the cameras to announce the plan, it was very obvious to those who would make decisions based on that plan that there was no plan."
Today, Ed Morrissy notes that Obama and Geithner still don't have a plan. Three nice tidbits therefrom are:
"More than five weeks ago, Barack Obama told the nation that Tim Geithner would unveil the administration’s plan to resolve the banking crisis and restore credibility to the markets the very next day. When the very next day arrived, Geithner arrived with some slogans tied together with hundreds of billions of dollars — and Wall Street ran screaming for the hills. Thirty days later, McClatchy notices that Geithner and Obama still haven’t produced a plan ..."
and:
"Kevin Hall notes that Geithner and Obama have fallen into the same trap as Hank Paulson and George Bush in the final weeks of the previous administration. They have correctly identified the biggest problem: the toxic assets linked to the massive, government-inspired lending bubble. Instead of spending the TARP monies on that issue, though, Geithner and Obama have instead tried everything but addressing the core issue of the collapse. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to floating private institutions that invested heavily or insured toxic assets without actually dealing with the poison itself."
and the big one is:
"When will a plan be forthcoming from the Obama administration? Unfortunately, it will probably have to wait until they get senior positions at Treasury staffed and up to speed — and as I reported earlier this week, Obama has sent a grand total of one nomination — out of 18 — to the Senate Finance Committee."
Obama is an amateur. To say he is floundering is being unkind to flounders.
All of the knuckel draggers knew exactly who he was. The question is why was Megan and people like her so unwilling to believe their lying eyes, Obama's books, his history of being associated with really hard left figures, the infamous "spread the wealth around" comment, his voting record in the Senate and so forth yet were so willing to believe in wishful thinking that somehow he was just doing all of that as a way to get ahead and didn't beleive it. Obama's non-derranged non-leftist supporters had to believe that Obama spent his entire career lying about what he really believed.
---
Those of us who were not taken in by The One's act are going to have to pay for his supporters' self-indulgence, and we really don't need further lectures from those whose judgment has been proven to be so obviously, painfully wrong.
---
What exactly did Obama do to establish his credibility during the election other than make promise and use rhetoric which had no factual basis in his record.
---
JohnCK is exactly correct, our self-anointed conservative mandarins refusted to see what was literally in front of their eyes and ears in print and in living color. I'm a lawyer, a mathematical economist, and an historian -- from any one of those perspectives, Obama and his proposed policies did not add up to anything other than socialism based on a hard left background.
And now to anticipate a bit more of Russell's groupthink (and apologies therefore, but the chores must be done), consider this bombshell. The gist of it is:
" A well publicized report this week that an estimated 1.5 million American children experienced homelessness in 2005-06 did not use the federal definition of homelessness. Instead, it used a different definition that grossly inflated the actual number.
"The report — released Tuesday by the National Center on Family Homelessness and reported by numerous news organizations, including FOXNews.com — estimated that one out of every 50 children in America experienced "homelessness" during that two-year span.
"But rather than using the definition of homelessness established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Massachusetts-based organization used a standard adopted by the Department of Education that includes children who are "doubled up," or children who share housing with other persons due to economic hardship or similar reason."
To put that in plain English, if little Timmie spent a month living with his Grandmma for whatever reason, he was reported by the National Center on Family Homelessness, and so duly reported by the goddamned media, as being homeless during that month. Worse yet, this is a standard "adopted by the Department of Education".
Then we find this gem:
"Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition of the Homeless, acknowledged the ongoing debate regarding the definition of homelessness, but he said he supported the report.
"'Folks who are living doubled-up with another primary tenant are effectively homeless,' Markee said. 'They may not be sleeping on the sidewalk or on the subway train, but they're homeless.'"
You guys check out Obamas Global Poverty Act? You think an $85 billion AIG bailout was bad...this thing gives that much money to the UN once a year for the next decade. Total cost will be $845 billion. Obama is going to run out of other peoples money eventually.
Ken, security is based on quantum entangling. Let's see DailyKos deal with non-local events!
From the Patriot Post: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Barack Obama took that adage to heart when he dialed up The New York Times to clarify his answer to an earlier question posed by their reporter about whether the president is a socialist. We here know the correct answer is "yes," but Obama decided to dance around the issue.
We might note that Obama without a teleprompter is like a fish out of water. He began, "See, uhhh, I -- I -- eh -- Just one thing that, uhh, I was thinking about as I was, uhh, -- as I was -- getting off the, uhhh, copter 'cause, I -- uhhh -- you know, it was hard for me to believe you were entirely serious about that socialist question." (Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh's team for the painful transcript.)
Obama continued, "Uh, and so I think that, uh, it's important just to note, uhh, when you start, uhh, hearing folks, uhh, throw these words around, thaaat, um, uh, we've actually been operating, uh, in a way that, uh, is entirely consistent with free market principles, uh, and that, uhhh, uh, some of the same folks who are uh, throwing the word 'socialist' around can't say the same." And he wasn't done yet: "I -- I -- I -- I just think it's c-clear that by the time we had, uhhhhh. By the time we, eh, uh, got here, uhhh, ummm, there already had been, uh, an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system, aaand, eh, eh, eh, y-y-yuh-y-y-yuh.... The thing I constantly try to emphasize to people is that, if coming in the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me, uh, to stay out of it. Uh, you know, I -- I -- I have more than enough to do, uh, without having to worry about the financial system. Uh, and the fact that, uh, we've had to take these extraordinary measures, uh, and intervene, uh, is, uhh, not an indication of my ideological preferences."
While Obama does have a point about some of the fiscally irresponsible policies enacted by the Bush administration, the truth is that Obama didn't rise to oppose them, either in Congress or on the campaign trail, for being too big, but rather that they were not big enough.
We knuckle draggin' mouth breather's said it during the campaign, but it bears repeating, Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter. He can regurgitate preprocessed sound bites.
"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we're down on the dumps," Obama said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."
Repeat after me, "I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."
Anyone care to take a pass at parsing that? If Bush had said that, it would have splashed across the news and had a SNL skit on it already.
It's called "Obama Hash". I made that term up myself. Ya like it?
Obama is not a "stream of consciousness speaker" like Rush Limbaugh, who can go on and on, sentence after sentence, speaking whole, connected thoughts that comprise an entire essay, all the while looking at nothing but his audience. He doesn't need a teleprompter; it's in his head and he knows of what he speaks well enough to speak it on the fly. Watch his CPAC speech. It was delivered without notes and without a teleprompter; he just stood up there and talked.
Nor is Obama a "Parliamentary speaker" like Winston Churchill, who practiced his magnificently crafted speeches in his study but who delivered them on the floor of Parliament as if they were extemporaneous, all the while casually sneaking looks at simple outline notes on 3x5 index cards that he held in his hands, and all the while re-crafting his words in response both to what had been said just before him and to how his colleagues reacted to him. Few have ever mastered the real-time use of the English Language as he had, and few have ever been as effective at communicating his thoughts by the spoken word.
No, Obama is a speech reader, nothing more. If a teleprompter stands before him, then he can stand before a crowd and read what it says. He can do a magnificent job of delivering to the crowd the grammar that it delivers to him. But if he is called on to speak more than a few words that haven't been prepared beforehand and aren't being delivered to him in real time, then he is revealed as a mumbling, stumbling, bumbling, fumbling, inarticulate fool. He couldn't stand before a crowd and speak as Limbaugh did at CPAC if his life depended on it.
This matters, and it matters A LOT. Everyone in foreign countries who Obama has to deal with can see and hear that he can't think on his feet, as it were. This plays to their advantage, not his, and it puts us at risk.
It is painful enough to watch that it makes me long for the articulate days of his predecessor.
"Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001."
But here is the meat of it:
"The American people as a whole tends to give new administrations some time to find their footing, which is usually referred to as the “honeymoon” period. The polling shows that Obama has rapidly depleted that store of goodwill, and that voters have begun taking a hard look at the massive amounts of spending and government expansion, as well as the fumbling response to the financial crisis. Rasmussen notes that taxes have become a big concern, with most voters no longer buying the line that Obama can fund his programs merely by taxing the top 5% of earners. Over eighty percent — a hefty bipartisan majority — worry that the deficit spending Obama has proposed will make the situation worse, not better."
"Which brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience is showing.
"His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
"The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
"And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
"No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too."
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/03/quote-of-day_09.html (101 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The writer of "Apocalypse Now"? He ought to know. After all, he is definitely a writer well acquainted with garbage scripts. Not that Dirty Harry smelled all that sweet either.
One other thought:
Only CNN could call someone so far left an "outspoken conservative".
Milius is one of my favorite directors, esp. for Conan the Barbarian. He's also a writer and executive producer for the HBO series Rome. Nobody is making red-blooded movies like he used to.
Milius is to the left?
Does this sound like a conservative?
"I was watching Rush Limbaugh the other night, and I was horrified. I would have Rush Limbaugh drawn and quartered. He was sticking up for these Wall Street pigs. There should be public show trials, mass denunciations and executions."
Not to mention that "Apocalypse Now" was an amoral mess with cardboard "conservative" characters who actually loved war.
He's far-Right Wing for Hollywood.
For the rest of the country, he's mildly Leftist, depending on the topic.
Reality: it's what wins against a defiant consensus.
Of course all he's doing is quoting Theodore Sturgeon: "90% of Science Fiction is crap! Of course, 90% of everything is crap".
From this article and others I've read I'm sure Milius would be the first one to give fair attribution (as he did for the Gengis Kahn quote from Conana), but I doubt the CNN reporter even recognized it.
He's also up for election to the NRA board this year. I'm not at all sure if I want to vote for a right-wing populist who wants people who believe in economic freedom to be "drawn and quartered".
It might explain the shocker of his not getting re-elected last year, and instead getting a special appointment. At least that's how I remember it. If someone (Sebastian, Bitter) has the details on that, I'd be interested in hearing them.
The man who was the inspiration for Walter Sobchak (well, half of Walter) is worth listening to.
"Does this sound like a conservative?"
Well, anyone who questions Herr Limbaugh these days...to your knees or to the gallows!
"people who believe in economic freedom to be "drawn and quartered"."
Economic Freedom...(propaganda)defined as turning a blind eye to criminals (no different from the ones normally bitched about by the right) and then excusing their acts while framing them as victims of government over regulation. That kind of freedom?
I don't agree with everything Milius talks about but he is a great writer (loved Conan, Apocalypse, and Rome) and is dead on with this one. If people on Wall Street (and the people like Rush who defend them) actually were punished for their crimes, we'd probably be much better off.
Ed,
OK, point taken. Lump Milius in with Orson Scott Card: leftist with a few conservative traits.
Well, anyone who questions Herr Limbaugh these days...to your knees or to the gallows!
No, it just means he's not conservative, ding-dong.
Sarah, he is going to miss your point, just watch.
Markadelphia: "Economic Freedom...(propaganda)defined as turning a blind eye to criminals"
Marky is playing with his strawman dollies, er, "action figures" again!
Do you have any evidence for this slander, or are you just "reading minds" (otherwise known as "making shit up") again?
BTW Marky, it's ironic that you posted your slander just as Kevin has been writing about Honor.
Though I haven't Bowman's Honor: A History I'm pretty sure that impugning a man's honor with such an outrageous falsehood would earned a duel. Aren't you glad it isn't possible today?
More corrections: (Sheesh!)
Though I haven't read Bowman's Honor: A History, I'm pretty sure that impugning a man's honor with such an outrageous falsehood would have immediately earned you a duel.
"Do you have any evidence for this slander?"
Evidence of what, Ed? That Rush Limbaugh has broken the law? Or Bernie Madoff? Or Jack Abrahamoff? Or who exactly?
That conservatives don't care about lawbreakers.
Sarah, he is going to miss your point, just watch.
Or ignore it.
I'm more interested in how he responds to Ed's question.
Markadelphia: "Economic Freedom...(propaganda)defined as turning a blind eye to criminals"
1.) Who committed a crime? Name any company and its executive officers who committed any crime and which law or laws they violated.
2.) This entire economic problem would be well on its way to being fixed if the companies that screwed the pooch hadn't been bailed out by the .gov
3.) I'm sorry, but I can't get onboard with someone who advocates "public show trials" for anyone. It sounds like something out of the Soviet Union.
"That conservatives don't care about lawbreakers."
Or to put it more accurately, that conservatives don't care about laws being broken.
I should add to point 1 above, name the company that committed a crime that it is not being punished for ALREADY.
Sarah,
You're right, ignoring it seems more likely.
I stopped being interested in his responses long ago. I'm more interested to see the resident crack team of Reich wing clue-by-four wielders curb stomp his stupidity.
And then I stand amazed on how darn smart they are and how Marky likes the abuse. Or ignores it!
Russell,
"crack team of Reich wing clue-by-four wielders"
Please tell me you're joking. The fascists didn't care much for truth any more than Marky does. Though we weren't around for that time period, I suspect that most of us would have been just as opposed to the Nazis' shenanigans, even without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as we are to Mark's.
Ed,
I am. Tongue in check.
It's an absurdist term, making fun of Marky's limited world view, his distorted understanding of conservatives and his weak understanding of history and current events.
And I certainly hope that if we were transplanted in history, we'd adhere to the same principles as we do now.
Russell,
Phew! I was getting worried there.
Of course, we're still waiting for Marky to give us his imaginary point by point ideological comparison between fascists and conservatives to back up his absurd claim that we're the same.
I perceived his tongue-in-cheek right from the get-go, Ed. I was born only seven years after the Nazis were stomped into line, and my father was a Nazi stomper with the US Army. How could I not be a history buff, and how could I not see his joke?
Look at his question, Ed:
"Evidence of what, Ed?"
He doesn't understand what he wrote. Blather is often like that.
Too true!
But, given his past history, I think we shall be waiting like Estragon and Vladimir.
VLADIMIR:
One can bide one's time.
ESTRAGON:
One knows what to expect.
VLADIMIR:
No further need to worry.
ESTRAGON:
Simply wait.
VLADIMIR:
We're used to it.
One good thing about Mark's presence here: he's a catalyst for interesting conversations. :-)
So is a dog who shits in your living room while Aunt Minnie is visiting. The question becomes, what conversations are worth having?
Lessee.
5 days.
Is that the standard for "the reset" now?
Or is that as long as he can remember?
Gee, wonder what happened here.
DJ:
Exactly.
Damn you guys are fun to read!
Ain't they, though? ;)
True, Sarah, but it's too bad he really doesn't participate.
DJ: Yup. Crazy Uncle Marky (twice removed) might be fun to bring out for parties, but cleaning up the mess he makes on the carpet isn't fun.
U-J: I'm thinking he likes to wait until the post slides off the front page. Or he just ignores it. Or the programmer of the "Marky Script" is retooling it for all now mindless blather.
"new", not "now", "new mindless blather."
Sigh.
Russell:
Why start "new" now?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1111132292434002830
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1046181465978400623
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/21449378878006548#585280
Going on two years, and not a single bug report looked at. Success!
"1.) Who committed a crime? Name any company and its executive officers who committed any crime and which law or laws they violated."
Bear Stearns, Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi both of whom have been arrested for fraud which is a good thing but any guesses as to how little time if any they will serve?
And how about Richard Marin? He was a senior executive at Bear Stearns who was replaced for "mismanaging" hedge funds but never arrested. CEO James Cayne and co President Warren Spector, who also later resigned, knew that the funds value were much less than what they led their investors to believe. Again, that's fraud and both are still walking free.
How about another one for a bonus round? Bill Mcguire, United Health Care, backdating stock options, currently enjoying a half a billion dollars in compensation. But hey...all us liberals like to punish the successful, right?
"2.) This entire economic problem would be well on its way to being fixed if the companies that screwed the pooch hadn't been bailed out by the .gov"
How do you know this? I'm not saying I disagree with you but the top economic minds in this country have no idea what to do so why do you? I think the time for thinking outside of the box has to begin now and falling back on the "it's all the government's fault" meme is not going to help. Neither is cutting taxes for the top five percent. Look at how well that worked.
"3.) I'm sorry, but I can't get onboard with someone who advocates "public show trials" for anyone. It sounds like something out of the Soviet Union."
You are right. I wouldn't want that either and that would be where Milius and I part ways. They do need to be punished, though, and they aren't. Instead, they get large payouts and a pat on the back.
"making fun of Marky's limited world view"
OK...seriously...now THAT is now officially the funniest thing I have heard on this blog. Again, Russell, what are the inherent flaws of conservative ideology and free market economics? And how did we see them play out in this latest economic crisis?
. . . what are the inherent flaws of conservative ideology and free market economics?
I've never read it expressed better than this:
(A)t the heart of conservatism is an ongoing, unresolvable dialectic between freedom and virtue. In other words, there is a bedrock belief in the idea that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources and to create wealth and prosperity for all, but a frank acknowledgment that, without a virtuous populace, the system may produce a self-centered, materialistic citizenry living in a sort of degenerate, "pitiable comfort." Thus, there is an ongoing, unresolvable tension between the libertarian and traditional wings of the movement.
That's pretty much spot-on.
So was this:
There is no such dynamic tension in liberalism. Rather, it is a top-down dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
Again, Russell, what are the inherent flaws of conservative ideology and free market economics? And how did we see them play out in this latest economic crisis?
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as the free market in anything under discussion, Kevin was (very) generous (and IMO mistaken to) enough to answer you thoroughly.
You who left all sorts of questions unanswered here.
Also notable was the type of question asked. You asked a quasi-rhetorical question in an attempt to salvage your worldview, the questions in the thread (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) that you ignore/d were meant to actually find common ground.
DJ has quite accurately described your "debating method", where you ignore questions, and at the "end" try and stump us with a gotcha question with no relationship to the subject. Much like how you can't understand and separate why I point to proof that Krugman is not a place to honestly debate from any opinion I (didn't) express on his policies and columns.
Kevin's now answered your question. Hows about you fucking manning up and answering ours, to quote someone who said something like that recently...
Or at least have the good grace to learn how to say "I was wrong."
It's not weakness to admit that, and mean it. It's really not.
Kevin was (very) generous (and IMO mistaken to) enough to answer you thoroughly.
I just like that quote a lot, and he gave me an excellent excuse to drag it out again! ;)
Markie,
You seemed to skip right over this comment:
"I should add to point 1 above, name the company that committed a crime that it is not being punished for ALREADY."
If the other companies you mentioned have committed a crime, why isn't the Democratic Attorney General of New York or the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, indicting and prosecuting them.
Because maybe, they haven't committed an actual crime, just questionable business practices.
That gets me to my second point. If the .gov didn't bail these companies out, then the company officers would be answerable to the stockholders and the board. If the entire company is rotten, then it would go bankrupt.
Like Citibank should have. If enough companies go bankrupt then maybe their successors might just think twice before doing shady business practices like bundling, etc. But they knew from the getgo that Uncle Sam would keep them safe and thus had little reason to invest wisely.
I'm sorry, Mark, perhaps if you'd learn the proper role of words, meaning, logic (just syllogistic would be fine), history, basic psychology, basic economics, basic rules of debate, basic conservative principles, honor, respect for those on the other side of the issue in someone's parlor, the ability to assess data originating from different sources, the ability to understand the basic outlines of an argument, and understand when and why your responses to said arguments are stamped with FAIL, have a basic understanding of Western Civilization starting back with Greeks and rolling on up to our current place in the world stage, some familiarity with the big three Greek thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), with a modicum of understanding of different types of governments, how they work, were the power lies and why, read at least the Cliff Notes to Hume, Locke, and the Founding Fathers, a good dash European History and maybe the slightest glimmering of self awareness, then maybe we could have a discussion.
But as it stands, no.
And your repeating of "the funniest thing I have heard on this blog" is just getting old. Either your bar for funny is set really low, or your memory is failing faster than we thought.
"I just like that quote a lot, and he gave me an excellent excuse to drag it out again!"
Do it again, Kevin!
Go, team, go!
Yosemite, I agree with you. And perhaps Citi should be allowed to fail. In addition, there are plenty of Democrats that turn a blind eye as well to their pals in business, as is the case in New York. This is not necessarily a party thing. The view on the right, however, that people who are wealthy are being "punished" for being successful is ludicrous. If these companies are in such dire straits, why are their CEOs walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars?
Kevin, your first quote is great. You, in fact, are the "one person" that I spoke of in regards to being reflective-ideologically speaking. Sadly, I see that the others here consider being reflective as "generous."
"But as it stands, no."
And likely with will always be "no", Russell. Remember, this is someone who stated to a scientist, as I quote here [snark]verbatim[/snark],
"And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."
You won't have a discussion with him. You can write more words using their real meanings, crafted in logic, about history, psychology, economics, conservative principles, honor, and and so on, and so on, and so on. He will write only from the point of view of a Hollywood director who is filming yet another make-believe epic in which reality really and truly is what he imagines it to be. He will not see the little man behind the curtain. He is only a little boy who stands in front of the screen, awestruck at the pretty pictures. He is as incurable as he is unreachable.
Sadly, I see that the others here consider being reflective as "generous."
No, as amply explained, the "generous" part was answering the question of the person who is noted for refusing to answer questions.
Or for even admitting gross errors in his own view and outlook, amply and easily demonstrated.
That's generous. Not that he answered the question, but he answered it when you asked.
Checked on what "verbatim" means yet? Or what the ideals of libertarianism are yet? No? Oh, I'll try and damp my shock.
"Kevin, your first quote is great."
What do you think of the other half of his quote, you know, the one about liberals, teacher boy?
Remember, this is someone who stated to a scientist, as I quote here [snark]verbatim[/snark],
"And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."
And, as I recall, this was less than 2 weeks after he said that our drive for truth and "black and white" understanding, insistence on facts and sources and proof was insatiable and annoying.
DJ: I'm afraid you hit the nail on the head. And the reflection off the silver screen the little boy mistakes as self reflection.
U-J: Just stop with your right wing language manipulation and your bizarro conservative power of memory! What is being felt right now is more real than anything else, specially things in the dead past!
Funny, he accepts Kevin as being reflective, but disregards Kevin's opinion of, well, the rest of us here in his parlor. Truly, a dizzying intellect!
"And, as I recall, this was less than 2 weeks after he said that our drive for truth and "black and white" understanding, insistence on facts and sources and proof was insatiable and annoying."
Yup, as I noted, he can't remember his lies and he can't rise to his own challenge.
Russell,
U-J: Just stop with your ... bizarro conservative power of memory!
You can't top Mark's negative spin on that: IIRC he referred to it in a previous thread as stalking or obsessive behavior.
Whoo boy...
I've been reading through the last couple of threads thrashing Markadelphia. It's like a small boy who continues poking a large tiger with a stick while utterly clueless that said tiger is now gnawing on his arm, and working his way up into the thorax...
The black knight analogy mentioned in one of the earlier threads fits pretty well, too.
You know, I once had a teacher like Mark in the eight grade. She nearly gave me detention during one of her lessons on the Oregon trail because I mentioned that what makes scorpions dangerous was their sting, not their bite, and none of the scorpions found on the Oregon trail were all that poisonous as she had insisted. Facts mattered about as much to her as they do to Mark; they are not to get in the way when (s)he's trying to make a point.
"Economic Freedom...(propaganda)defined as turning a blind eye to criminals (no different from the ones normally bitched about by the right) and then excusing their acts while framing them as victims of government over regulation. That kind of freedom?"
Well let's see, change what they're described as victims of, and that perfectly fits
Frank Raines
Jamie Gorelick
Tim Geithner
Tom Daschle
Al Franken
Barney Frank
Christopher Dodd
Jack Murtha
Al Sharpton
Charles Rangel
So I can't see why you're on Rush about it.
"Bear Stearns, Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi both of whom have been arrested for fraud which is a good thing but any guesses as to how little time if any they will serve?"
More time than anyone on my list I'll bet. At least they got arrested.
"Again, that's fraud and both are still walking free."
See above.
"Neither is cutting taxes for the top five percent. Look at how well that worked."
Would you care to point out a time when cutting taxes failed to raise revenues? The fact that wealthy Democrats don't pay their taxes is beside the point, it still worked. It wasn't tax cuts that caused problems, it was unrestrained spending. Just like is still going on in both parties. At least the actual party leadership on the right has some people who want to rein in spending, the leaders on the left just want to make up a justification for more.
"They do need to be punished, though, and they aren't. Instead, they get large payouts and a pat on the back."
I agree. But as long as they need to be punished, but somehow none of the ones on my list need to be, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.
"The view on the right, however, that people who are wealthy are being "punished" for being successful is ludicrous."
How so? How is taking (taxing) their money for services they do not receive not punishing them? "They should pay more because they can afford it" is just an excuse to justify stealing, Mark. It's ARMED ROBBERY, and that's all it is.
Whether they can afford such continued mugging is beside the point, it doesn't change what it is.
The fact that half that list consists of members of "the most ethical Congress ever" is just decoration, like the cherry on top of a sundae.
U-J sez No? Oh, I'll try and damp my shock.
Sounds like me this morning, trying to wrap my head around why yet another DoD acquisition program is about to do something VERRRRRRRRRRRRY stupid.
And I have no power to alter that.
:-(
OT, but if you haven't seen this already: Rachel Lucas discusses Brits freaking out over the Alabama shootings and our gun-crazed culture, but not the Germany shootings.
"Would you care to point out a time when cutting taxes failed to raise revenues?"
Umm...how about the last eight years? Bush cut taxes and how well did that work out? The "growth" that was reported was a fucking lie. Which brings me to a comment by Unix earlier in this thread...
"Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as the free market in anything..."
Really? Then explain to me how a bank (pick any of them) "can report 25 straight quarters of profit and then suddenly be bankrupt?" (Dylan Ratigan, CNBC). The fact is that Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton decided to essentially tell regulators to leave the market alone and let it do what it wanted to do. President Bush continued this policy and encouraged no oversight.
Greenspan has since said:
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, were such that they were best able in protecting their own shareholders and the equity in their firms."
Former Treasury Secretary John Snow recently echoed these statements and said that the regulatory officials did not do enough to oversee multiple elements of the banking, financial, and housing industry.
Now Grumpy, I do agree with you that spending is a problem. Take a look at Obama's health plan. He is going to pay for half of it by reducing spending within Medicare and Medicaid. Does he get credit for that or not?
As far as your list goes of people being punished, Charlie Rangel is the one that jumps out at me as the most guilty. He should go to jail. Franken and Geithner both paid their taxes. Barney Frank didn't pay taxes? I realize he is guilty of being the absolute worst person, on a number of levels, to represent a "solution" to the crisis but that's just because he is a doofus.
Last note, since it was brought up by Sara, how long do you suppose it will take for us to find out that Alabama guy was on a SSRI?
He is going to pay for half of it by reducing spending within Medicare and Medicaid. Does he get credit for that or not?
Once again, you conflate what he says with what will happen.
IF HE ACTUALLY DOES IT - and NOT BEFORE - he'll "get credit".
Period.
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation.
Umm...how about the last eight years? Bush cut taxes and how well did that work out?
Tax revenues went up.
You were saying?
Then explain to me how a bank (pick any of them) "can report 25 straight quarters of profit and then suddenly be bankrupt?"
Explain to me particle physics.
Oh, wait, I can understand that, bad comparison.
Your argument has nothing to do with the lack or presence of regulation. This is exceedingly stupid even for you.
(And, again, don't I get primary source status on regulation in banking and mortgage companies? I've worked for the (at the time) largest growing mortgage company, as a senior engineer, and I've also worked where you don't leave home without it. I can assure you, if they're unregulated, the executives, auditors, and employees don't know that.) (I've never been more audited, lectured, paperworked, checked, double-checked, and lawyer'ed.)
But the regulation or even if there wasn't any has NOTHING to do with the solvency of banks. If they had 25 profitable quarters,and then one where they made nothing, they're going under. Cash flow, even you should be able to look it up. Banks, corporations are about cash flow. Without cash flow, they'll go under. Period. By definition. Which is not related to the amount of "regulation" they're under. (Regulation just increases how much cash they have to have to meet costs.)
The fact is that Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton decided to essentially tell
There's your weasel word. "Essentially tell". So you know you've lost the argument, because the regulations increase by 10% or so per year, and are in excess of 210k pages now. So instead you'll try and argue that Clinton and Greenspan called them on the down low and said "Yo, like, do whatevah!"
President Bush continued this policy and encouraged no oversight.
We can apparently add "policy" "no" and "oversight" to the list of words you know the definitions of, as long as you don't, you know, have to define them. (Which is kind of the definition of definition, really.)
Take a look at Obama's health plan. He is going to pay for half of it by reducing spending within Medicare and Medicaid. Does he get credit for that or not?
No.
For 2 reasons. (Why I tell you reasons, I don't know.)
Wait, for you, 1. Linoleum Aardvark! (Thanks, Stingray). There, that's my rebuttal to you. It's as logical as your arguments. Hell, you probably understand what I'm saying.
For anybody ELSE reading, 1) Because he's already got a really bad track record of not living up to his promises. No, this doesn't come as a surprise, as we predicted this. He made promises that there was no way he was going to be able to keep, as well as mutually-contradictory promises.
2) Because how he cuts it is just as important as what he cuts. That will have to be judged. You're giving him credit for making a promise. Without specifics. What if he decides the best way to cut that money is to, oh, say, cut all women out of Medicaid and Medicare? It's a cut, isn't it? What if his "cut" is to force the Frosts to sell their investment property and house to pay for their own care?
...
You really cannot think through anything. It's amazing. Really is. A promise from the right person is all it takes to convince you, no matter how ludicrous. You can't do any basic research. Meanwhile, you can't even honor your own malaprops and misuse of "theories" when we try them ourselves. (Primary Sources, remember? You know, like you ignore that I'm one of, according to you?)
And you lambast me for being wrong when I describe teachers. Somebody call Alanis! Now this is ironic!
Markadelphia: "Bush cut taxes and how well did that work out? The "growth" that was reported was a fucking lie."
Marky, Marky, Marky. When are you gonna learn that you cannot make pronouncements like that without evidence to back it up? Furthermore, haven't you learned that we know how to fact check you. So here you go:
Chart showing what happened to revenues from corporations when their tax rates were cut
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
"Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts."
…
"While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.
"Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated. By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending."
…
"The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre–tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue."
And from the Unanswered Questions Department:
Seriously, Mark. You know the answer to this one by now. How [do] we tell the difference between a false accusation of lies, idiocy and treason, and an accurate accusation?
Franken and Geithner both paid their taxes.
After they had entered the public spotlight.
In both cases, it wasn't "accidental", it was deliberate tax evasion, and I suggest you not attempt it.
In Geithner's case, it was after he filed for and received fraudulent compensation for the "taxes he paid".
But don't worry, Mark. They damn sure think you'd better pay your taxes correctly. No matter how "complicated" those tax forms are.
Regulation != solvency.
U-J, Kevin:
In truth, I am expecting Obama to reduce spending. But in true politician style: First, he'll propose a hike in expenses around 200%. Then he'll 'reduce' that by half. And then the happy lickspittles in the MSM will all cry out how The One reduced costs by half!! OMG!!1!.
Then the world will join hands and sing Ku-obama-ya and we will own unicorns that poop rainbows and social justice.
Dear Protagoras:
It took me all of about five seconds to Google up a PDF of a letter from the Congressional Budget office to Kent Conrad, comparing 2006 federal tax revenue to 2003.
2003 Individual Income Taxes: 794BN
2006 Individual Income Taxes: 1,044BN
2003 Corporate Income Taxes(1): 132BN
2006 Corporate Income Taxes: 354BN
2003 Other Taxes: 857BN
2006 Other Taxes: 1009BN
2003 Total Revenue: 1,783BN
2006 Total Revenue(2): 2,407BN
Footnotes (mine):
1. Corporate income taxes are actually paid by, you know, individuals, in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Still, we'll play along.
2. Q. E. Duh.
(But Ken, if Chimpy McHitlerBurton hadn't lowered tax rates, revenues would have gone EVEN HIGHER! - or so the "reasoning" goes. - Ed.)
The case of Geithner doesn't amaze me, but it should. The level of incompetence shown by the Anointed DemiGod who appointed him is exceeded only by the one he appointed.
If a newly elected President considers appointing someone to a Cabinet position, what would be a very important question to ask him early on during such considerations? How about, "Is there anything in your history that would embarrass you and/or me if you were vetted by Congress, and if so, is it bad enough that I ought not to appoint you, and/or you ought not to accept?"
Well, consider the incompetence this exhibits on the part of Geithner, particularly in the context of being appointed to be the Secretary of the Treasury, the guy who is responsible for handling the gubmint's money and for collecting the gubmint's revenue (hint to idiots: the IRS reports to HIM): 1) he doesn't know what of his income is taxable and what isn't; 2) he doesn't ask a tax advisor what of his income is taxable and what isn't; 3) he files income tax returns that are incorrect because he doesn't know what of his income is taxable and what isn't; and, 4) he doesn't correct his income tax returns and pay the delinquent taxes until he is exposed during the confirmation process.
Now, consider the incompetence this exhibits on the part of Obama, particularly in this: "Tim Geithner, when I [nominated] him, was rightly lauded by people from both sides of the aisle...as somebody who was uniquely qualified" to handle the economy, Mr. Obama said. "Is this an embarrassment for him? Yes. He said so himself." It raises the steamy question, "Why the hell wasn't this an embarrassment on the part of Obama?"
One might think someone who was "uniquely qualified" to handle the economy would come up with a plan for doing so. But when Geithner stood in front of the cameras to announce the plan, it was very obvious to those who would make decisions based on that plan that there was no plan.
The gumdrops are:
"In what was supposed to be a major announcement of a plan to address the insolvency of numerous banks and financial institutions Mr. Geithner only talked about concepts and ideas.
"Mr. Geithner’s first public statement was a massive failure as measured by the capital markets. Leading up to today’s announcement by Mr. Geithner it was talked up by the Administration that broad sweeping measures, new policies, and new efforts would be announced in a big ’shock and awe’ plan. But there was only shock, shock that there is no plan at all.
"Mr. Geithner’s words communicated to the market that he and his staff still has no plan and his speech communicated that strongly without even saying those exact words.
"The markets sold off very quickly following the release of his speech when it became apparent that they still have no solution to the problems facing the financial system of the United States."
And this is in regards to only ONE appointee for ONE office. The conclusion of the article is still correct:
"Mr. Timmy Geithner… get out while you can. You are not the right man for the job."
Today is the first time since then that the markets have had two up days in a row.
Damn, but it's gonna be a long four years.
"First, he'll propose a hike in expenses around 200%. Then he'll 'reduce' that by half."
Russell, I covered this before:
"Year after year, Congress pulls a bait-and-switch on the public that morons like Markadoofus eat up as if it were chocolate. At the beginning of the term, they "project" what the budget will be. Then they pass actual budget bills that are lower than the "projections" and claim that they have "cut the budget". They and the media ignore that the new budget is higher than the old budget, and the sheeple are just too goddamned stupid to notice the sleight-of-hand."
DJ: Dangit!
Stop stealing my verbatim talking points before I can groupthink!
But, yes. Exactly. And it happens every year. Which should amaze me, but doesn't.
OK, everybody, don't miss tomorrow's 8:30 AM Groupthink Sychronization Session™©®. Remember, we've all got to echo-chamber the Reich-Wing™©® Talking Points™©® of our Corporate Masters™©® verbatim!
Oooh.
8:30?
Wait.. EDT? MDT?
From 8 to 11:30 EDT I'm slotted for my seminar on how to be locked into a rigid belief system that ignores, while being totally subservient to facts and logic. You didn't get your Orders from Rush? Better double-check, you know how mad he gets when he's talking and people aren't listening.
M'busy.
Karl Rove will be here until 2:45 PM. Can I TiVo it?
Oh, shit, I don't have a TiVo.
Damn.
Just send me the memo, Kevin.
I thought that mind-control program was noon to 3:00PM Eastern?
Now DJ, you know the conditioning doesn't take unless you have the electrodes properly connected at your temples. . .
UJ,
That would GMT, Greenwich Mean Time. Could any other time zone be more appropriate for Reich-wing conservatives?!?
Got 'em right here.
I'm an electrical engineer, I am. I designed and made 'em my own self.
They use superconductive ether decouplers for effective digital telepathy, so there are no standing waves.
They're custom molded to the fat in my head, so they fit perfectly.
No, they're MINE. You can't have 'em.
Could you make me a set? My .gov issue ones give me a terrible rash.
I thought you'd never ask.
Nope, can't do it.
I had parts for only one set. The ether decouplers were the hardest to make, and now that I've used 'em, there is no ether.
"Franken and Geithner both paid their taxes."
Several years late, only after they were caught and out in the public eye. As if saying "oops" should get you out of breaking the law... but only if your politics are correct, apparently. So why is it that apparently you don't see them as criminals, because they finally got around to complying with the law years late, yet
"Bear Stearns, Matthew Tannin and Ralph R. Cioffi both of whom have been arrested for fraud which is a good thing but any guesses as to how little time if any they will serve?"
Somehow that seems to be a failure of justice in your mind, even though they did get arrested which is more than happened to Franken or Geithner. Franken and Geithner defrauded the IRS for years, did they not?
Again, that's fraud and both are still walking free.
Who said that?
Instead, they get large payouts and a pat on the back.
Like Tim Geithner, huh?
Barney Frank didn't pay taxes?
I didn't post that list as solely tax cheats, you'll notice. I posted that list of people who had screwed the US government and the American people to the tune of millions or billions, and had been rewarded for same. Will you contend otherwise?
That was a quick and dirty list, right off the top of my head. Yet you'll notice I had no problem coming up with 10 Democrat names, you apparently don't have any real disagreement with my assessment of them as criminals, frauds and con artists.... and half of them are members of "the most ethical Congress ever" and the other half were recently rewarded with "large payouts and a pat on the back" to "the most transparent and accountable Presidency ever".
And yet you claim it's the Republicans who are crooked?
Well, continuing onward, the title
The gems:
""The Obama team has blown it," said David Resler of Nomura Securities."
and:
""The most important issue in the short run is the financial rescue," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "They overpromised and underdelivered. Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head.""
Has there been a President who failed more significantly or more quickly than this? Well, yes, William H. Harrison did, but only because he died one month to the day after his inauguration.
A long four years ...
Also, while you're exploring this "Republicans are all capitalist pigs who have no problem with obscene profits in the marketplace" theme, don't forget this part:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106712/World%27s-Billionaires-2009
Maybe the reason they don't have a problem with obscene profits when things succeed is because they don't have a problem with obscene losses as a result of failure either.
Who gets to decide what's obscene?
I've been getting calls every day from GOPAC. I finally told 'em not to call again. I am done with the "who does what to whom" game.
Tim Slagle has nice coverage of the Bill Maher/Ann Coulter debate in Chicago. This part especially caught my attention:
In an argument over whether Reagan won the cold war, Ann claimed that Carter was losing the war so badly, that 37 countries fell to Communism while he was in office. Bill responded, “Oh, another one of your rectum derived statistics?”
Ann flipped out. “What is this a Roman Colosseum? I’m so sick of you pulling that Whoopi Goldberg crap. All you’re proving is that you have a stupid audience that agrees with you.” She was right. Anytime she brought up any statistic that supported her arguments (Like: crime declines after concealed carry passed), the people in the audience would shake their heads in disbelief while Bill mugged it up. It made me realize how much of liberalism has become conventional wisdom.
Remind you of a certain evidence-immune person we all know?
Incidentally, Mark, I'm with you on one (1) thing: would not be surprised if the Alabama (or Germany) shooter was on meds.
So, an analogy. (Sorry, reading this thread made me think of it.) I play a good bit of basketball. I even managed to play for a year in college - small school, so I'm good enough to judge skill, but not good enough that it would have been reasonable to think I could make a career out of it.
Since then, I play a lot of hoops to stay in shape. There is an interesting phenomenon I have noticed. At every gym I play at, there is always One Guy. One Guy always dresses in the popular hoops style of the day - shirt under a tank top, fashionable shoes, socks pulled all the way up (or down, depending on what players in the NBA are doing.) One Guy also swaggers a bit - he'll talk like he's very knowledgeable about basketball, knows the ins and outs, watches a lot of NBA games to talk about the current goings on.
Yet, when it comes down to playing the game, One Guy is just awful. He bricks shots from every location on the court. He makes horrible decisions - shooting when he's got a defender all over him, passing though areas that are swarming with defending hands. Now, this could just be the work of new player at basketball. Except, One Guy is a special kind of awful. You see, One Guy never gets better. He doesn't possess the self introspection required to say to himself: "hmm, x didn't work very well. Maybe I should try y next time." Which, of course, is how most of us learn something - mess it up a few times until we figure it out better ways to do it. Incredibly, One Guy thinks that he is good. He will talk as though he was the driving force behind a win - even though the win occurred despite of him. He'll actually criticize the mistakes of other people - when his own play is so consistently horrible that any other person with a lick of sense would keep their mouth shut. He'll talk about the one shot he made out of 20 (yes, 5% is about right) and ignore the 19 missed, along with the effect that has on the potential to win.
It has been three years, and nothing has changed. I've tried giving One Guy some friendly advice - ignored. I've given him not so friendly advice, particularly when he's causing my team to lose - ignored. (The most frustrating being when the other team purposefully lets him shoot - knowing that the odds of him missing are quite high. I say to him, "They are letting you shoot. Shouldn't that tell you something?" Apparently not.)
Mark, you are One Guy. You're not just bad at this, you're so bad that you can't even discern that you're bad. And that is the worst thing of all, because it means that you'll never get better. I can take any person and make them a reasonable basketball player, iff they can honestly assess when something they do works versus when it doesn't. You don't seem to possess the wherewithall to do that. It hurts to watch.
Haplo9, does it remind you of this?
-----
Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie's flat and hangs him out the window] I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
-----
Golly. Sometimes the movies imitate real life, don't they?
Pfft, rank amateurs. I had my frontal lobes and cerebral cortex replaced with a Rove Personality Construct™©®, DittoHead Kneejerk Reaction Centers™©® (never groupthink alone) and subsonic transponders that pick up secret VRWC™©® Commands™©® anywhere on Earth™©® and relay my every thought back to HQ! Oops, it's time for my three minutes of Hate, I love Big Business!
(Earth is a trademarked by Haliburton. All others are registered under Rover, Rush, Cheney or the VRWC.)
Haplo9 : Bingo!
Russell, Gingrich had all that nifty whizbangitry too...and look what happened to him. Clearly, he's been hacked by a Kos Skript Kid.
Granted, Newt's stuff was all prototype. How's your security? ;-)
As I noted two days ago,
"One might think someone who was "uniquely qualified" to handle the economy [i.e. Timmy Geithner] would come up with a plan for [stabilizing the banking system]. But when Geithner stood in front of the cameras to announce the plan, it was very obvious to those who would make decisions based on that plan that there was no plan."
Today, Ed Morrissy notes that Obama and Geithner still don't have a plan. Three nice tidbits therefrom are:
"More than five weeks ago, Barack Obama told the nation that Tim Geithner would unveil the administration’s plan to resolve the banking crisis and restore credibility to the markets the very next day. When the very next day arrived, Geithner arrived with some slogans tied together with hundreds of billions of dollars — and Wall Street ran screaming for the hills. Thirty days later, McClatchy notices that Geithner and Obama still haven’t produced a plan ..."
and:
"Kevin Hall notes that Geithner and Obama have fallen into the same trap as Hank Paulson and George Bush in the final weeks of the previous administration. They have correctly identified the biggest problem: the toxic assets linked to the massive, government-inspired lending bubble. Instead of spending the TARP monies on that issue, though, Geithner and Obama have instead tried everything but addressing the core issue of the collapse. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to floating private institutions that invested heavily or insured toxic assets without actually dealing with the poison itself."
and the big one is:
"When will a plan be forthcoming from the Obama administration? Unfortunately, it will probably have to wait until they get senior positions at Treasury staffed and up to speed — and as I reported earlier this week, Obama has sent a grand total of one nomination — out of 18 — to the Senate Finance Committee."
Obama is an amateur. To say he is floundering is being unkind to flounders.
As Instapundit puts it: [sarcasm]"The country is in the very best of hands."[/sarcasm]
Even more funny, and I think an sly backhanded insult today:
MEGAN MCARDLE: “Having defended Obama’s candidacy largely on his economic team, I’m having serious buyer’s remorse. . . . The budget numbers are just one more blow to the credibility he worked hard to establish during the election.”
The first commentaries on that link are pretty savage:
Having serious buyer's remorse?
All of the knuckel draggers knew exactly who he was. The question is why was Megan and people like her so unwilling to believe their lying eyes, Obama's books, his history of being associated with really hard left figures, the infamous "spread the wealth around" comment, his voting record in the Senate and so forth yet were so willing to believe in wishful thinking that somehow he was just doing all of that as a way to get ahead and didn't beleive it. Obama's non-derranged non-leftist supporters had to believe that Obama spent his entire career lying about what he really believed.
---
Those of us who were not taken in by The One's act are going to have to pay for his supporters' self-indulgence, and we really don't need further lectures from those whose judgment has been proven to be so obviously, painfully wrong.
---
What exactly did Obama do to establish his credibility during the election other than make promise and use rhetoric which had no factual basis in his record.
---
JohnCK is exactly correct, our self-anointed conservative mandarins refusted to see what was literally in front of their eyes and ears in print and in living color. I'm a lawyer, a mathematical economist, and an historian -- from any one of those perspectives, Obama and his proposed policies did not add up to anything other than socialism based on a hard left background.
And now to anticipate a bit more of Russell's groupthink (and apologies therefore, but the chores must be done), consider this bombshell. The gist of it is:
" A well publicized report this week that an estimated 1.5 million American children experienced homelessness in 2005-06 did not use the federal definition of homelessness. Instead, it used a different definition that grossly inflated the actual number.
"The report — released Tuesday by the National Center on Family Homelessness and reported by numerous news organizations, including FOXNews.com — estimated that one out of every 50 children in America experienced "homelessness" during that two-year span.
"But rather than using the definition of homelessness established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Massachusetts-based organization used a standard adopted by the Department of Education that includes children who are "doubled up," or children who share housing with other persons due to economic hardship or similar reason."
To put that in plain English, if little Timmie spent a month living with his Grandmma for whatever reason, he was reported by the National Center on Family Homelessness, and so duly reported by the goddamned media, as being homeless during that month. Worse yet, this is a standard "adopted by the Department of Education".
Then we find this gem:
"Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition of the Homeless, acknowledged the ongoing debate regarding the definition of homelessness, but he said he supported the report.
"'Folks who are living doubled-up with another primary tenant are effectively homeless,' Markee said. 'They may not be sleeping on the sidewalk or on the subway train, but they're homeless.'"
Where the hell does this crap end?
Keep giving them hell fellas.
You guys check out Obamas Global Poverty Act? You think an $85 billion AIG bailout was bad...this thing gives that much money to the UN once a year for the next decade. Total cost will be $845 billion. Obama is going to run out of other peoples money eventually.
Ken, security is based on quantum entangling. Let's see DailyKos deal with non-local events!
From the Patriot Post:
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Barack Obama took that adage to heart when he dialed up The New York Times to clarify his answer to an earlier question posed by their reporter about whether the president is a socialist. We here know the correct answer is "yes," but Obama decided to dance around the issue.
We might note that Obama without a teleprompter is like a fish out of water. He began, "See, uhhh, I -- I -- eh -- Just one thing that, uhh, I was thinking about as I was, uhh, -- as I was -- getting off the, uhhh, copter 'cause, I -- uhhh -- you know, it was hard for me to believe you were entirely serious about that socialist question." (Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh's team for the painful transcript.)
Obama continued, "Uh, and so I think that, uh, it's important just to note, uhh, when you start, uhh, hearing folks, uhh, throw these words around, thaaat, um, uh, we've actually been operating, uh, in a way that, uh, is entirely consistent with free market principles, uh, and that, uhhh, uh, some of the same folks who are uh, throwing the word 'socialist' around can't say the same." And he wasn't done yet: "I -- I -- I -- I just think it's c-clear that by the time we had, uhhhhh. By the time we, eh, uh, got here, uhhh, ummm, there already had been, uh, an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system, aaand, eh, eh, eh, y-y-yuh-y-y-yuh.... The thing I constantly try to emphasize to people is that, if coming in the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me, uh, to stay out of it. Uh, you know, I -- I -- I have more than enough to do, uh, without having to worry about the financial system. Uh, and the fact that, uh, we've had to take these extraordinary measures, uh, and intervene, uh, is, uhh, not an indication of my ideological preferences."
While Obama does have a point about some of the fiscally irresponsible policies enacted by the Bush administration, the truth is that Obama didn't rise to oppose them, either in Congress or on the campaign trail, for being too big, but rather that they were not big enough.
We knuckle draggin' mouth breather's said it during the campaign, but it bears repeating, Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter. He can regurgitate preprocessed sound bites.
DJ: It ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Even more brilliance from The One:
"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we're down on the dumps," Obama said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."
Repeat after me, "I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."
Anyone care to take a pass at parsing that? If Bush had said that, it would have splashed across the news and had a SNL skit on it already.
Oooh, what a lead in. Thanks, Russell.
It's called "Obama Hash". I made that term up myself. Ya like it?
Obama is not a "stream of consciousness speaker" like Rush Limbaugh, who can go on and on, sentence after sentence, speaking whole, connected thoughts that comprise an entire essay, all the while looking at nothing but his audience. He doesn't need a teleprompter; it's in his head and he knows of what he speaks well enough to speak it on the fly. Watch his CPAC speech. It was delivered without notes and without a teleprompter; he just stood up there and talked.
Nor is Obama a "Parliamentary speaker" like Winston Churchill, who practiced his magnificently crafted speeches in his study but who delivered them on the floor of Parliament as if they were extemporaneous, all the while casually sneaking looks at simple outline notes on 3x5 index cards that he held in his hands, and all the while re-crafting his words in response both to what had been said just before him and to how his colleagues reacted to him. Few have ever mastered the real-time use of the English Language as he had, and few have ever been as effective at communicating his thoughts by the spoken word.
No, Obama is a speech reader, nothing more. If a teleprompter stands before him, then he can stand before a crowd and read what it says. He can do a magnificent job of delivering to the crowd the grammar that it delivers to him. But if he is called on to speak more than a few words that haven't been prepared beforehand and aren't being delivered to him in real time, then he is revealed as a mumbling, stumbling, bumbling, fumbling, inarticulate fool. He couldn't stand before a crowd and speak as Limbaugh did at CPAC if his life depended on it.
This matters, and it matters A LOT. Everyone in foreign countries who Obama has to deal with can see and hear that he can't think on his feet, as it were. This plays to their advantage, not his, and it puts us at risk.
It is painful enough to watch that it makes me long for the articulate days of his predecessor.
It is painful enough to watch that it makes me long for the articulate days of his predecessor.
Not to mention the prior fiscal restraint.
Obama and Pelosi are calling this "a crisis of confidence"...
...anyone remember what the words "con", as in, "He's a con man, he's running a con game", is short for?
I gotta give em credit for being honest at least.
Yup, a case of buyer's remorse is setting in. Here is the funny part:
"Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001."
But here is the meat of it:
"The American people as a whole tends to give new administrations some time to find their footing, which is usually referred to as the “honeymoon” period. The polling shows that Obama has rapidly depleted that store of goodwill, and that voters have begun taking a hard look at the massive amounts of spending and government expansion, as well as the fumbling response to the financial crisis. Rasmussen notes that taxes have become a big concern, with most voters no longer buying the line that Obama can fund his programs merely by taxing the top 5% of earners. Over eighty percent — a hefty bipartisan majority — worry that the deficit spending Obama has proposed will make the situation worse, not better."
Obama's making a good hard run at Carter's crown of Worst President.
For your amusement, March 18, 2008, Letterman does an "Uh" Count of Obamessiah haltering speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw
It goes on:
"Which brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience is showing.
"His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
"The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
"And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
"No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too."
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>