September Low Political Content Thread - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

September Low Political Content Thread

...

Page 1 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21

Page 1 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21

08-31-2009 , 07:50 PM

Bigdaddydvo

King of the Politics Forum

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 21,496

Happy September Eve. Efficacy of Fiscal and Monetary Stimulus discussions are thataway.

08-31-2009 , 10:37 PM

pokerbobo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 14,432

in before september

08-31-2009 , 11:04 PM

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

in before content

08-31-2009 , 11:30 PM

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Obama's saving money!

Quote:

Citing the current economic recession — and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks eight years ago — President Obama says he will use emergency powers to cut the programmed across-the-board January increase in federal employees’ pay from 2.4 percent to 2.0 percent, according to a letter he sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday.

Quote:

"Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement an alternative pay plan if I view the adjustments that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate due to 'national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,' Obama wrote in Monday's letter. 'A national emergency, within the meaning of chapter 53 of title 5, has existed since September 11, 2001. Likewise, with unemployment at 9.5 percent in June to cite just one economic indicator, few would disagree that our country is facing serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare."

I'm glad that 9-11 scaremongering is gone with bush!

09-01-2009 , 02:26 AM

Brian.

banned

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 5,676

Why did Ron "Dr. No" Paul vote in favor of the SAFE Port Act? The final vote was 421-2, with Jeff Flake (R) and Edward Markey (D) voting against. I'd always assumed RP was one of the no votes.

Interestingly, from Jeff Flake's wiki:

Quote:

Flake voted against No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security Act[3], and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. He sponsored bills to increase legal immigration and establish a guest worker program.

I'm not familiar with some of these acts, but voting against his party's No Child Left Behind had to take pretty big balls at the time, right? "How can you be against the children?!" I recall Bush, along with all the rest of the bureaucrats and media, patting themselves on the back for that one.

He also went against Homeland Security when his entire party was beating the fear and war drums, though he did support Patriot Act and Iraq War.

Jeff Flake Opposes Bailout in September 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Flake

The crisis we now face is a result of government intervention in the market.

Anyone heard of this guy? Wow this poast turned from a RP question into Jeff Flake.

Last edited by Brian.; 09-01-2009 at 02:38 AM.

09-01-2009 , 02:38 AM

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Any smart politician won't be on the wrong side of a 421-2 imo

09-01-2009 , 02:45 AM

Brian.

banned

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 5,676

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Any smart politician won't be on the wrong side of a 421-2 imo

Oh, I agree. There were 9 abstentions, and one was Barney Frank. Which I'm not sure if that makes me actually like him a little bit or hate him even more. He knew it was wrong, but cared more about his political career more than being principled.

But this has never stopped Ron Paul before. So I don't think it was a case of him being a "smart politician".

09-01-2009 , 02:59 AM

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Let's not talk about what Frank thinks is wrong or right. Frank has basically doubled his net worth in the eye of the IRS in the last week or so because he forgot to report ****. He's a ****ing scumbag who has our side in the poker debate, but he's still a scumbag.

09-01-2009 , 09:56 AM

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Flake is one of the more libertarian leaning members of the House; a little more gung ho about foreign adventures than RP, a little less reflexively anti-immigration. If you had to use a crude metric and put them on the paleo-con/neo-con spectrum of the libertarian right, Flake is closer to the neo-con side, Paul is closer to the paleo-con side.

09-01-2009 , 09:59 AM

#10

Bigdaddydvo

King of the Politics Forum

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 21,496

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

That was Charlie Rangel, yo.

09-01-2009 , 10:00 AM

#11

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdaddydvo

That was Charlie Rangel, yo.

bigdaddy is right, what are you talking about ikes?

09-01-2009 , 10:02 AM

#12

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,540

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdaddydvo

That was Charlie Rangel, yo.

Yeah let's get the scumbag du jour right.

09-01-2009 , 10:53 AM

#13

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

09-01-2009 , 10:55 AM

#14

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

There's also someone reading ESPN.

09-01-2009 , 11:08 AM

#15

obsidian

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,957

One on the left is playing Freecell, much superior to solitaire.

09-01-2009 , 11:12 AM

#16

Ineedaride2

Politics Court Jester

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25,080

Joe Klein vs Glenn Greenwald: HU Blog 4 rolz?

I must say, I have never had a real high opinion of Klein, and this doesn't help his case.

09-01-2009 , 11:18 AM

#17

Mempho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by obsidian

One on the left is playing Freecell, much superior to solitaire.

'Tis the truth.

09-01-2009 , 11:20 AM

#18

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

I have never seen him acknowledge that the work of the clandestine service—performed disgracefully by the CIA during the early Bush years—is an absolute necessity in a world where terrorists have the capability to attack us at any time, in almost any place. Nor have I seen [him] acknowledge that such a threat exists, nor make a single positive suggestion about how to confront that threat in ways that might conform to his views. Therefore, I have seen no evidence that he cares one whit about the national security of the United States. It is not hyperbole, it is a fact.

lolz, Joe Klein ftw imo

Hey Ineedaride, I haven't EVER seen you, NOT ONCE, denounce pederasty. Nor have I ever even seen you acknowledge the threat from pedophiles EXISTS, nor make a single positive suggestion about how to confront the threat from pedophiles. Therefore, I have seen no evidence that you care one whit about the children of the world. That is not hyperbole, it is fact.

WhoisIOZ does it much funnier than me, fwiw.

09-01-2009 , 11:24 AM

#19

Ineedaride2

Politics Court Jester

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25,080

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

lolz, Joe Klein ftw imo

Hey Ineedaride, I haven't EVER seen you, NOT ONCE, denounce pederasty. Nor have I ever even seen you acknowledge the threat from pedophiles EXISTS. Therefore, I have seen no evidence that you care one whit about the children of the world. That is not hyperbole, it is fact.

WhoisIOZ does it much funnier than me, fwiw.

That links to the funniest thing I've read today. I'm going to bookmark that son of a snatch sniffing gutter dweller.

09-01-2009 , 11:26 AM

#20

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Oh man WhoisIOZ is pretty much the funniest blog on the whole interwebs. He's some kind of anarchist/buddhist, this forum would really like him. The next IOZ post after the Greenwald one:

Quote:

America's next top model, Richard Cohen, cannot decide about torture. He expounds upon his own moral imagination, which wouldn't be up to the task of determining the rightness of making adolescent soccer teams shake hands after a game, and condemns anyone who's passed more than four or five fruitless seconds considering the moral nature of torture as "ideological," a word that, like so many others, means something different within the headquarters of the Washington Post than it does without. Whatevs. I am willing to believe that in certain Washingtonian corridors, there are powerful people who might read and be swayed by your perseverating Krauthammers, your pedantic George Wills, your earnest El Kruggos, your high-heeled, low-minded Dowds, but I do not believe anyone cares about Cohen. Recall he is the guy who wrote a whole dream-sequence ballet scene for the MGM musical that is his life about how he didn't interview the President. So, you know, natch.

If you can't say unequivocally that torture is wrong, then you can't say that anything is wrong. Moral relativism alarm, woo-ah-woo-ah! I eagerly await Richard Cohen's next thinkulation: "Contract Murder, But Does It Work?"

09-01-2009 , 11:28 AM

#21

Ineedaride2

Politics Court Jester

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25,080

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

Oh man WhoisIOZ is pretty much the funniest blog on the whole interwebs. He's some kind of anarchist/buddhist, this forum would really like him.

Eh, whassachasay sonny?

I thought I had found everything worth finding on the internet thus far. I missed one.

09-01-2009 , 11:29 AM

#22

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Some people think Cheney should run for president in 2012

Personally, I don't see why he would even want a third term.

09-01-2009 , 11:33 AM

#23

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ineedaride2

I thought I had found everything worth finding on the internet thus far. I missed one.

hat tip to Paul Phillips on this one, which is where I disocovered IOZ and added him to my necessary daily reading:

http://extempore.livejournal.com/204819.html

Quote:

A recent commenter introduced me to IOZ and it has become my favorite blog. He has a true gift for the unexpected, which renders him both fascinating and hilarious - he gets me with sudden lols and I'm not a big loller.

09-01-2009 , 11:51 AM

#24

istewart

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 15,910

What is David Brooks talking about here?

Quote:

Amazingly, some liberals are now lashing out at Obama because the entire country doesn’t agree with The Huffington Post. Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes.

This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country — and good luck getting anything done after that.

Brooks seems to be conveniently glossing over the fact that reconciliation requires a majority. It's not like Sanders, Feingold, Schumer, and Harry Reid's grandmother decide to vote yes and the thing passes. As such, the "liberal wing" talking point seems pretty stupid; if 50 (or more) members of the Senate can be characterized as "the liberal wing," and they pass a health care bill, why would Obama have trouble getting stuff done in the future? Other stuff is comparatively easy.

The "35% of the country" line is just Brooks lying. The populations of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Washington, Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Wisconsin combine to form ~38% of the country. Yet they only represent 20 votes in the Senate. The oh-so-moderate Finance Gang of Six represent one senator from each of North Dakota, Maine, Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, and Iowa. Even if you assume that Snowe, Conrad, Enzi, Bingaman, Grassley, and Baucus individually represent the entirety of their respective states, that's ~14M people, or less than 5% of the country. But clearly if we get these guys on board, we've attracted those level-headed nonpartisan moderates who aren't beholden to the biases of the liberal blogosphere.