Here's another site regularly finding both inadvertent humor and economic ignorance, as well as obvious bias, in Krugman's rants.
And here's a link describing the Enumerated Powers Act, which is so straightforward as to be standard protocol in Congress. Yet every Congress for many years has chosen to hide it under the table.
Last edited by barit1 : 7th September 2008 at 04:08.
"In 1901, as Vice President, the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley after McKinley's assassination by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. He is the youngest person to become President.[4] He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance.[5][6] As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions. "
(emphasis added)
Quote:
Being in a wheelchair means he didn't have to actually get on his knees for Stalin at Yalta; he could perform the same act on Uncle Joe right at sitting level while taking directions.
Right now I'm sitting in a hotel lobby in Albuquerque across the street from where McCain and Palin just held a rally. I was struck by the contrast between the enthusiastic people thronging to get a glimpse of Palin and the group of protestors in the street outside the convention center. So unenthused did they seem outside that I wondered if they were not indigents paid to hold up their inane signs.
I'll leave it to you to guess which group had the smiling faces and which seemed to have just eaten a lemon followed by a castor oil chaser. Not only did they look unhappy, but quite a motley bunch as well.
I'm not surprised at Zogby's poll results as the momentum had become so clear even I could see it. And Zogby has tended in the past to understate Republican numbers (Rasmussen is the most accurate). The bloom is clearly off the rose for Obama, and the more hysterical his campaign and the left's response to Palin is, the stronger the Republican ticket seems to show in the polls.
GetTheFlick
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 23
Quote:
I believe that FDR was the best President in U.S. history. Yet, he was an "economic elite." Try to square that with any mental-cubby hole you might try to put me in.
Let me take a shot at it since you're playing a guessing game; Your vote can be bought by an FDR-esque Government handout or social program making long-term promises it can't keep thereby expanding the Economic Democrat Plantation at the same rate government beauracracies tasked with doling-out entitlements do while at the same time demonizing the oppostion. It's all so very 1930's.
Quote:
Tell me, back in the days when you were here in the South -- back when we had "Yellow-Dog Democrats" -- did most of the people get their politics from the pulpit then too ?
I'm not sure if most got them from the pulpit, since I never went to church, not even with my Southern Baptist, born-and-bred ex-inlaws. But I'd wager most Yellow Dogs learn their race politics at home when they're still young, or down at a local Klavern. I'd wager that the real, live Klukkers I observed at times (hoods and all) while living in Kennesaw (my first southern residence) were taught at their father's knee about the War of Northern Aggression and how Lincoln and Republicans eat babies.
Quote:
P.S. To those following along and unfamiliar with American history...
After Lincoln (A Republican) freed the slaves, white Southerners became unquestioning (if they wanted to stay healthy) Democrats. A saying came along -- something to the effect of, "Southerns would vote for a mangy, yellow dog before they'd vote Republican." Hence the term "Yellow-dog Democrats." That all changed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the The Southern Strategy.
P.P.S. To those following along and unfamiliar with American history and want a more complete version not viewed through the singular prism that Race Politics explains everything...
"Yellow Dog Democrats" are by definition Democrats who would never vote for a Republican since it was formed as an
Abolitionist Party, Lincoln prosecuted "The War of Northern Agression", and Republicans controlled fate of Southerners during post-Civil War Reconstruction. Yellow Dog Democrats are bound-up in lingering Civil War issues not limited to race, and they certainly didn't disappear after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was a strategy to win the General Presidential Election using the rift existing at the national level between Northern and Southern Democrats that had been spawning so-called state's right's third-party Presidential candidates since the 1940's.
But at the internal, State election level (Governor and Legislative branches) Democrats didn't need to splinter off or vote for variou "States Rights" party candidates because those Parties were primarily formed to defy their Northern Democrat bretheren...and in the South, Republican parties had NEVER held any power at the State level anyway... so Southern states remained solidly "Yellow Dog"-locked Democrat. To win a State Office in a Southern State a Democrat's main challenge was winning the race for the candidacy against another Democrat, because sometimes there wasn't even a Republican to run against, let alone a politically strong one. Bill Clinton's Arkansas while he was Governor was still like this. Voting districts were gerrymandered to ensure no strong Republican pockets or base could exist and spread.
Until the 1980's and 90's this was the usual case, but when more prosperous regional economics began to supplant pure-racial issues in State-level politics, and fewer and fewer Democrats could relate to a Party that seemed to be increasingly hijacked by the West Coast-lunatic and Northeast-liberal political fringe that chose, after Carter, to send a Lefty Humphrey-Democrat like Walter Mondale to run against Ronald Reagan, you saw Democrats begin to ditch their party and grass-roots Republicans gaining ground on issues like taxation and national security.
To keep in context, the late1970's were a time of Oil Crisis, runaway inflation, insanely high interest-rates for borrowing, and Hostage Crisis and Post-Vietnam Syndrome etc. With the Civil Rights Movement behind them, most Southerners...like everyone else.. were FAR more concerned about these issues than racial politics.
And THIS...the Reagan Era.. was when your average Democrat voter was enticed to vote Republican, even down into the State level, and it had very little to do with what Political Race-baiters demonizing the other party would have you believe now i.e..that the Republican Party was/is racist and therefore attracted Democrat racists who found the Democrats too progressive (this demonization and cause-swapping also helps to whitewash the Democrat Party's poor showing in voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to the Republican's strong supprt).
Southern Democrats voting Republican (like Reagan Democrats elsewhere) had everything to do with De-Carterizing and rejecting the likes of Walter Mondale for economic, military strength, and national pride reasons. The South was tired of decades of inflammatory Race Politics, saw that it had become practically and Industry unto itself feeding it's own flames, and setting it on the back burner for the first time in decades to meet more immediate concerns, Reagan Democrats helped elect not only him, but some of the first Republican Governors and State Legislative majorities in literally, 100 years.
Quote:
P.P.S Never forget who your audience is AMF. You ain't mine.
Better? Gotta explain to them what you conveniently ommited in your revisionist history during your demonizing-mission to assign racist attitudes to others. Yellow Dogs don't stray.
Rush seems to like it. What's he got now...12, 13, 14 million listeners ? Would it be safe to assume they like it too ?
Believe it or not, I hadn't heard of this little episode of Rush's. But just to be "Fair and Balanced", I saw Rush's side of the story in the "related" section of YouTube so here it is;
...Republican style or the reactive lurchings toward panicked direct intervention (marxist style) from an administration that has screwed the US economy (with a massive global spillover) and has lost the plot?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Republican style or the reactive lurchings toward panicked direct intervention (marxist style) from an administration that has screwed the US economy (with a massive global spillover) and has lost the plot?
"Lurching!"..."Panicked!"...."MASSIVE!"..you know, your posts would be a lot more interesting if you 1) first knew what you were talking about, either currently or historically, regarding government's involvement of Fannie mae/FreddieMac and how Lending Laws, passed by whom, affect them, and 2) actually made a persuasive case instead of relying on drama-queen hyperbole.
What you've linked us to is so very mundane. You want "screwed"? You should have been around during the Savings and Loan debacle, where both the Senate and House Banking Commitee Chairmen...charged with the oversight and regulation of such things (they were Chairmen because the Dems were the majority in Congress...where things like Banking Laws originate...and the Majority Party chairs the Commitee and holds the tie-breaking vote) were long-sitting Democrats from Texas. Texas, incidentally, was where half the scam-ridden Savings and Loans that failed were located.
But perhaps you're so excited and stricken about sub-prime mortgage loan failures and the government stepping-in to avert a Savings and Loan-sized problem because you weren't paying attention before, and therefore have nothing to relate it to?
Is this like rookie America-watchers gasping that the cost of the Iraq War is "bankrupting your country", but in doing so are only highlighting that they obviously have never looked-up the size of the U.S. Military and Defense spending during the Cold War years when we weren't even firing a shot?
Somehow I don't think this...gleaned from your article...helps you make your case for a "screwed US economy". On the contrary, you using it merely highlights that you're ignorant of garden-variety labor vs. management gamesmanship, and which games are played when.
Quote:
That contract was reached at a time when airlines with about half of U.S. capacity were in bankruptcy protection and industry losses were continuing to mount.
Since then strong sales and production at Boeing have led to record profits at the aircraft maker.
Quote:
The size of Boeing's unionized workforce has grown in the face of the strong demand, up by nearly half during the life of the contract.
Quote:
n the first half of 2008, total U.S. civilian aircraft exports rose 14% to nearly $25 billion, and parts exports for those aircraft other than engines rose nearly 11% to more than $10 billion.
Sooooo, let's see....a large manufacturing company that relies on skilled, unionized labor is experiencing growth and high profits, and now the labor force wants a bigger cut of the Profit Pie since they settled for a smaller piece when times weren't so good.
Um...how is this unique, let alone foreboding? As far as I can tell, you've linked us to a Run-of-the-mill, "Times are Good" labor dispute story where labor seems to be holding more cards (as they do when times are good) and furthermore, to an American manufacturing company that's experiencing these good times due to International Trade (exports).
How does this in any way, shape, or form, support your previous hyperbole? It does just the opposite.
Give me a break-exactly where did he have the power to CREATE a country? You complain about GWB invading Iraq, what's up with that! The poster child for an overreaching president, a man who openly conceded that he had whatever power he wanted as president.
Keep grasping for straws Capt. K, it keeps things interesting.
Now exactly which country in the world has the highest number CCTVs per citizen, including North Korea? First two guesses don't count.
Excuse me? What has CCTV's to do with Muslim schools and Sharia law? Tell me, who's grasping for straw?
Now for some more factchecking:
Quote:
He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.
Summary
We checked the accuracy of McCain’s speech accepting the Republican nomination and noted the following:
McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.
McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.
He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.
He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.
He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.
More fatcs here. As they say, never let facts spoil a good acceptance speech...
More on Palin's lies re the Bridge to Nowhere and Earmarks. It seems Palin lies about clearly exposed lies.
Oh dear! How they wriggle and squirm when the pressure comes on!
It must be hard to win an election when the Democrats have more than two thirds of the press and TV on their side, even before the election is announced, yet public opinion still doesn't hail them as winners.
Don't worry Capt. K. the Republicans will be able to shoot you down, claim for claim, I wish November was tomorrow!
So what is the McCain/Palin position on the following:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Rebuilding the strained relationships in NATO
Economic policy - particularly the US Trade Deficit
Rebuilding the shattered housing market in the US
China
Saudi Arabia
Russian aggression
I see many of the usual suspects claiming that the Democrats have lost the election already because there is a gun slinging babe on the ticket, but really is the electorate that shallow?
Mind you AMF is going to vote Republican just to piss off a couple of foreigners on a bulletin board he has never met, so maybe I don't need to ask
Domestic policy - Get the government out of the marketplace; the private sector will repair itself quicker than "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you..."
Foreign policy - Free trade provides incentives for everyone to play nice.
Flypuppy quote; So what is the McCain/Palin position on the following:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Rebuilding the strained relationships in NATO
Economic policy - particularly the US Trade Deficit
Rebuilding the shattered housing market in the US
China
Saudi Arabia
Russian aggression
What is the Obama/Biden position on those same issues? That's the real question..comparing the 2 (or more) positions is what makes elections what they are. That you choose to ask specifics of only side, especially when 6 of your 8 categories relate to Foreign Policy or Defense, speaks volumes since McCain is, and has been while in the Senate, pretty clear with regards to how he would handle Foreign policy in specifics, whereas Obama can offer nothing more than "I'd talk to them" and has no record anyone can draw from.
Basically you'd like McCain to climb into the ring and take on all comers while Obama himself lounges in his robe outside the ropes. The election is McCain vs. Obama, and if Obama is anything more than just silly styrofoam Greek Temples and a mouthpiece, then Democrats shouldn't be afraid of the match-up.
This goes for economic issues as well...like it or not, McCain has a broad Legislative track record and bipartisanship while bucking his own party people can look at and compare with his current stated goals, whereas Obama has....nada.
Obama, so far, is nothing but an empty suit with a nearly-bankrupt track record, spewing flowery speech. Oh wait, he had those styrofoam columns too....
Where does he stand on any issue and why would people believe he can get anything done? McCain has proven he can. Obama hasn't.
Seems to me Obama is the one who should really be answering these questions since they are all hypotheticals to him. Unless Democrats can flesh out their own candidate and tell people what he's FOR beyond the rhetoric they won't be happy campers in November.
Quote:
I see many of the usual suspects claiming that the Democrats have lost the election already because there is a gun slinging babe on the ticket, but really is the electorate that shallow?
If you want "shallow", look no further than Obama himself, and therefore, his Disciples. The Democrats will lose if they insist on running against Bush or Palin because Bush isn't on the ticket and Palin isn't running for President. And unless they come up with some substance for Obama to compare favorably against McCain, they're doomed...again.
Quote:
Mind you AMF is going to vote Republican just to piss off a couple of foreigners on a bulletin board he has never met, so maybe I don't need to ask
Indeed I am, for Palin. And yes, it's just to piss them off. I love the thought of condescending, foreign cricketeers and soccer fans poo-ing themselves at the thought of a Hockey Mom occupying our 2nd highest Executive office.
Linear Mode
