LGP Political Discussion Thread

Post by **HomerPenguin** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:28 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:I guess I see where you are coming from, but I think the only number that shows true economic performance is the net jobs gained/lost. You didn't address my main point.

That would be fair if your main point had anything to do with what I'm talking about. I don't care which is the best indicator of economic performance. I care about the fact that the Republicans took the gross jobs estimates offered by Obama, which could be complete BS but that's not the argument they're making, compared them to net jobs numbers and extrapolated a conclusion that any high school student who isn't flunking math class can see is a bogus and phony argument. Our system doesn't work well without reasoned and informative debate between the opposing viewpoints on any given issue. We don't have that now, in large part because most of the public sees elected Republicans as a collection of lying clowns, and they go out of their way to reinforce that view on an almost daily basis.

Post by **HomerPenguin** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:34 pm

Guinness wrote:
HomerPenguin wrote:
Can you really say the stimulus worked then?
The extra 3.5 million people who still had jobs would probably say it did.

But here's the problem with that, Homer - The Feds didn't "give" anybody money, because the Federal government doesn't "have" money...

Yes, OK, I didn't offer that line as a defense of the stimulus, but as an illustration of the dishonesty with comparing gross figures to net figures. 3.5 million isn't a real number; it's taken from shafnutz's preceding post.

I'm not here defending the stimulus. I thought the stimulus was a mess, because as is par for the course when the Democrats are in power, they took one disputably worthwhile idea (massive injection of money into infrastructure projects) and another disputably worthwhile idea (tax cuts) and "compromised" them into something that is indisputably crap. It was the template for the health reform process.

Guinness · Post by **Guinness** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:56 pm

And that is the problem inherent in most government programs - that since government does not have any money to give, it is necessarily taking it from one private entity (present and/or future) and giving it to another private entity, with all the unforeseen consequences therein. The rhetoric "they" use to justify this course of action never includes any mention of those consequences (the reason being to make the min. 30% skim somehow palatable)... as overtly and obviously detestible as the so-called "bailout" and "stimulus" have been, so too are all such transfers, for the same reasons.

Post by **HomerPenguin** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:59 am

Geezer wrote:
HomerPenguin wrote:
Geezer wrote:Why is corporate buying of politicians worse than the buying of politicians by unions, lawyer groups, billionaires such as George Soros, foriegn governments, the Hollywood mega-rich and others? You often rail against corporations which is your rightful opinion but do you find it acceptable that pols sell out to these other special interests?
Yes, great, let's take all outside money out of the political process. Let the debate be about issues instead of fund raising and airtime. I'm all for it.
Me too. The best thing that could happen in our country would be to ban political advertising on TV. I think a case could be made that it's as big of a hazard as tobacco in its own way. Seriously , that's where most of the campaign money is spent. Voters should rely on voting records and investigative stories of what these candidates have done (not said) prior to a campaign although reporters would actually have to get off their butts and do some actual reporting. More people could actually read before elections if they wanted to make a more informed choice. Debates are okay to a degree but have some flaws. I'd rather see these cable networks have these candidates on during the same night for a set amount of time to give a canned spiel and then ask follow uo questions. I'd prefer independently of each other without either having seen the other's appearance. Their ratings should cover the cost of the show.

I couldn't agree more. Shrink Congressional campaigns to the two months that parliamentary campaigns in the UK run and conduct them via free media. Adjust the length for presidential and senatorial races. The broadcast stations are squatting on our airwaves, so let them do something with them that benefits the public for once.

Sarcastic · Post by **Sarcastic** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:44 am

HomerPenguin wrote:
Geezer wrote:The best thing that could happen in our country would be to ban political advertising on TV. I think a case could be made that it's as big of a hazard as tobacco in its own way. Seriously , that's where most of the campaign money is spent. Voters should rely on voting records and investigative stories of what these candidates have done (not said) prior to a campaign although reporters would actually have to get off their butts and do some actual reporting. More people could actually read before elections if they wanted to make a more informed choice. Debates are okay to a degree but have some flaws. I'd rather see these cable networks have these candidates on during the same night for a set amount of time to give a canned spiel and then ask follow uo questions. I'd prefer independently of each other without either having seen the other's appearance. Their ratings should cover the cost of the show.
I couldn't agree more. Shrink Congressional campaigns to the two months that parliamentary campaigns in the UK run and conduct them via free media. Adjust the length for presidential and senatorial races. The broadcast stations are squatting on our airwaves, so let them do something with them that benefits the public for once.

Oh, yeah, like that's gonna happen. Did you see that George Carlin special where he asks the audience if they think the real owners of this country will let them have fair and honest elections? He basically said that they allow us to select only among the candidates of their choice. Made perfect sense to me.

doublem · Post by **doublem** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:28 am

Oh, yeah, like that's gonna happen. Did you see that George Carlin special where he asks the audience if they think the real owners of this country will let them have fair and honest elections? He basically said that they allow us to select only among the candidates of their choice. Made perfect sense to me.

All of this back and forth and debate implies that there are really choices in this country. That we really have choices. “Freedom of choice.” It’s an illusion … let me say one thing about choice. There is no real choice. They say “freedom of choice.” You’re given an illusion of choice. Americans are meant to feel free by the exercise of meaningless choices … you know what the choices are in this country? Paper or plastic. Aisle or window. Smoking or non-smoking. Those are your real choices. You don’t get to choose anything in this country.

GC

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:22 am

HomerPenguin wrote:That would be fair if your main point had anything to do with what I'm talking about. I don't care which is the best indicator of economic performance. I care about the fact that the Republicans took the gross jobs estimates offered by Obama, which could be complete BS but that's not the argument they're making, compared them to net jobs numbers and extrapolated a conclusion that any high school student who isn't flunking math class can see is a bogus and phony argument. Our system doesn't work well without reasoned and informative debate between the opposing viewpoints on any given issue. We don't have that now, in large part because most of the public sees elected Republicans as a collection of lying clowns, and they go out of their way to reinforce that view on an almost daily basis.

OK I see what you are saying....they should be attacking the fact that the White House is using the completely lame and irrelevant "gross jobs saved/created" statistic to try and camouflage the fact that the stimulus sucks, rather than trying to compare figures that are apples and oranges. I can go with that.

I would say Republicans are HARDLY the only group viewed as liars. The secretary of the treasury is a tax cheat. Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the ways and means committee, is a tax cheat. And one thing I will say about Republicans....when one of their own gets themself into trouble, they (usually) are immediately pressuring them to resign or step down. On the other side, you have William Jefferson inexplicably being defended by his colleagues in Congress even after his house is raided and a block of cold hard cash (literally) is found in his freezer. Not saying this doesn't happen occasionally with the Repubs, but I rarely see Democrats acknowledging lawbreakers in their own party.

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:48 am

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28586.html

Raising the national debt limit was done a bunch of times during the Bush Admin., and now the Dems are going to continue the trend. I am getting a little tired of hearing Democrats whine about how they inherited "the worst economy since the Great Depression" as an excuse. They have a supermajority, as well as the executive branch, and are traipsing around like a bunch of schoolgirls. I can't help but wonder how long Bush is going to be used as a scapegoat for everything that is wrong in the country? I am waiting for Obama to blame his diarrhea on the beef burrito Bush ate the other night in Crawford.

MWB · Post by **MWB** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:43 am

shafnutz05 wrote: I would say Republicans are HARDLY the only group viewed as liars. The secretary of the treasury is a tax cheat. Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the ways and means committee, is a tax cheat. And one thing I will say about Republicans....when one of their own gets themself into trouble, they (usually) are immediately pressuring them to resign or step down. On the other side, you have William Jefferson inexplicably being defended by his colleagues in Congress even after his house is raided and a block of cold hard cash (literally) is found in his freezer. Not saying this doesn't happen occasionally with the Repubs, but I rarely see Democrats acknowledging lawbreakers in their own party.

Yes, when a Republican is caught red-handed sending explicit emails and im's to a page his colleagues call for his removal. However, if it's not that blatant the reaction isn't the same. Both sides have this problem.

Post by **HomerPenguin** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:16 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:And one thing I will say about Republicans....when one of their own gets themself into trouble, they (usually) are immediately pressuring them to resign or step down.

There are plenty of examples to demonstrate that that's simply not true, but it's irrelevant when we're not talking about scandals, we're talking about lying.

Post by **HomerPenguin** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:18 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:OK I see what you are saying....they should be attacking the fact that the White House is using the completely lame and irrelevant "gross jobs saved/created" statistic to try and camouflage the fact that the stimulus sucks, rather than trying to compare figures that are apples and oranges. I can go with that.

Well, OK. Interpret it however you want. The point is that elected Republicans and their party mouthpieces ought to try, just try, telling the truth on occasion and see how it works for them.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. The GOP lives in a universe where "fact" is whatever they made up that morning. It doesn't work that way.

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:24 pm

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... talk-radio

This is getting downright pathetic. For the last two weeks, Obama and his advisors have literally been obsessing over FOX News. The way Obama is picking petty, ridiculous fights with news outlets and radio personalities he doesn't like is about as far from presidential as you could possibly get. We have rising unemployment, a stimulus that is not working, Iran getting more aggressive, the Afghan War question, a failing education system, and sluggish economy, and the President of the United States' top priority at the moment is to discredit the Fox News Channel.

What friggin planet am I living on? Is Obama that thin-skinned that he can't handle outlets/people that dare to criticize him? For seven years, Bush was crucified repeatedly by almost the entire media, among with a large portion of the US population. How many times did you see him pissing and moaning because "wahhhh CNN and MSNBC are so mean to me...it's not fair they are biased!!!"?? NEVER. It's like we just elected a spoiled 2nd grader. I don't deny for a second that FOX leans to the right....but for God's sake Mr. President, you have the entire rest of the media behind you. GROW UP AND BE THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!

Remember when everyone compared Bush to Nixon repeatedly? I wonder what they have to say now.

/rant

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:25 pm

HomerPenguin wrote:You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. The GOP lives in a universe where "fact" is whatever they made up that morning. It doesn't work that way.

Do you really believe the Democratic Party is the party of honesty? I know for a fact you are not that naive. There are lies on both sides.

GaryRissling · Post by **GaryRissling** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:56 pm

HomerPenguin wrote:The GOP lives in a universe where "fact" is whatever they made up that morning. It doesn't work that way.

Really?! So cap and trade must then be rooted in sound scientific data? Or deficit spending on stimulus projects is likely to lead to sustained economic recovery? Or TARP was the salvation of non-wall street jobs? Or money for GE to create green energy jobs won't just be more government-subsidized jobs, rather than profitable, private sector jobs? Or government run healthcare program will be the first government program in history to meet budgetary projections? Or low-interest rates don't lead to the under-capitalization of our banks and our nation? Or higher minimum wages don't lead to more unemployment or outsourcing? Or industrial unions don't lead to more unemployment or outsourcing? Or deliberating for months on Afghanistan policy is merely being prudent rather than reckless with American lives? Or Kanye West is a ******* (OK, so he may have gotten one fact right)?

What universe do the Dems live in exactly?

bh · Post by bh » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:07 pm

GaryRissling wrote:
HomerPenguin wrote:The GOP lives in a universe where "fact" is whatever they made up that morning. It doesn't work that way.
Really?! So cap and trade must then be rooted in sound scientific data? Or deficit spending on stimulus projects is likely to lead to sustained economic recovery? Or TARP was the salvation of non-wall street jobs? Or money for GE to create green energy jobs won't just be more government-subsidized jobs, rather than profitable, private sector jobs? Or government run healthcare program will be the first government program in history to meet budgetary projections? Or low-interest rates don't lead to the under-capitalization of our banks and our nation? Or higher minimum wages don't lead to more unemployment or outsourcing? Or industrial unions don't lead to more unemployment or outsourcing? Or deliberating for months on Afghanistan policy is merely being prudent rather than reckless with American lives? Or Kanye West is a ******* (OK, so he may have gotten one fact right)?

What universe do the Dems live in exactly?

Well to be fair to HP here, he never mentioned the DP at all.

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:09 pm

bh wrote:[What universe do the Dems live in exactly?

Well to be fair to HP here, he never mentioned the DP at all.[/quote]

That's very true, but he seems to be a little one-sided in his attack on the Rs.

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:42 pm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9BG76902

This is the complete BS speak I am talking about coming out of the White House...their chief economist claimed today that the stimulus has saved/created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs. Can someone in the Obama Administration please explain to me how they arrived at this number? Is it too much to ask for a detailed breakdown of how the stimulus money saved/created these jobs? No? Not surprising, since it's just more blowing smoke.

I like how they are already saying the stimulus has just about run out of steam, and its contribution to the economy is going to level off shortly. I didn't even know it had started helping the economy yet.

GaryRissling · Post by **GaryRissling** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:02 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9BG76902

This is the complete BS speak I am talking about coming out of the White House...their chief economist claimed today that the stimulus has saved/created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs. Can someone in the Obama Administration please explain to me how they arrived at this number? Is it too much to ask for a detailed breakdown of how the stimulus money saved/created these jobs? No? Not surprising, since it's just more blowing smoke.

I like how they are already saying the stimulus has just about run out of steam, and its contribution to the economy is going to level off shortly. I didn't even know it had started helping the economy yet.

The true demise of journalism lies in its repudiation of critical thought. No one dares to ask why anything is necessary...TARP, global warming initiatives, stimulus, etc. If you disagree with the mainstream, you are now ostracized (hello Fox news).

Those numbers, however skewed in the administration's favor, should still warrant outrage. $194 billion spent for 600,000 jobs saved/created equals approx $323,000 per job, with no mention as to how temporary some of those "shovel-ready" jobs are/were. Even according to the administration's dubious numbers, it is still a glaring misuse of taxpayer money. Even if the administration did save/create 1.5 million jobs, the cost to the taxpayer for each one of those jobs is approx $130,000!

Geezer · Post by **Geezer** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:25 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... ity-rules/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is this a power grab by the FCC? Should they be regulating the internet? I don't know enough about what they're doing versus what the FCC is claiming to decide if this has a good side to it. Usually when in doubt I oppose government involvement. Can anyone shed some light on what the pros and cons are?

Post by **PensFanInDC** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:30 pm

Geezer wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... ity-rules/
Is this a power grab by the FCC? Should they be regulating the internet? I don't know enough about what they're doing versus what the FCC is claiming to decide if this has a good side to it. Usually when in doubt I oppose government involvement. Can anyone shed some light on what the pros and cons are?

Its from Fox News. Its opinion, not fact.

eddysnake · Post by **eddysnake** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:04 pm

Shafnutz, maybe this belongs in the random thread, but out of curiosity, you don't own any Rush Limbaugh ties do you? I was on his website today and the guy sells soap for $17

eddysnake · Post by **eddysnake** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:08 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

yeah the teleprompter told her to do it, hilar!

Post by **shafnutz05** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:15 pm

eddysnake wrote:Shafnutz, maybe this belongs in the random thread, but out of curiosity, you don't own any Rush Limbaugh ties do you? I was on his website today and the guy sells soap for $17

lulz no I don't....I am an unabashed fan of the guy though, and I know I am in the minority. haha I just saw that soap....it's a special novelty Club Gitmo soap...I don't think it's meant to be used in the shower. More of a gag gift, so the price is understandable. Maybe I might buy this though?

stopper40 · Post by **stopper40** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:20 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:
Geezer wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... ity-rules/
Is this a power grab by the FCC? Should they be regulating the internet? I don't know enough about what they're doing versus what the FCC is claiming to decide if this has a good side to it. Usually when in doubt I oppose government involvement. Can anyone shed some light on what the pros and cons are?
Its from Fox News. Its opinion, not fact.

How so? They don't give an opinion on way or another on the article? Just what the proposal is about

Post by **PensFanInDC** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:21 pm

stopper40 wrote:
PensFanInDC wrote:
Geezer wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... ity-rules/
Is this a power grab by the FCC? Should they be regulating the internet? I don't know enough about what they're doing versus what the FCC is claiming to decide if this has a good side to it. Usually when in doubt I oppose government involvement. Can anyone shed some light on what the pros and cons are?
Its from Fox News. Its opinion, not fact.
How so? They don't give an opinion on way or another on the article? Just what the proposal is about

= sarcasm

LGP Political Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread