Friday, June 11, 2010

Cruising the Web

Jennifer Steinhauer, writing in the NYT, thinks that Carly Fiorina's open mic gaffe making fun of Barbara Boxer's hair will harm Fiorina in the campaign by making her seem catty. I thought that the part of her open mic monologue that made her look especially bad was her musings on why Meg Whitman would go on Hannity because he was such a difficult interview. Please. When Hannity interviews a Republican his interviews consist of his stating his strong opinion about how idiotic, corrupt, and disastrous the Democrats are and then asking the Republican how much she agrees with him. If Fiorina regards that as "not an easy interview" then she is in deep danger. So she made fun of Boxer's hair in a private moment with her staff. It's not nice, but people just don't care about that sort of thing. I'm sure Fiorina would be happy to put the video of her gaffe up against the video of Boxer demanding that she not be called Ma'am. Or Boxer's statement on the Senate floor that carbon pollution will be "over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way."

Byron York has uncovered that the Labor Department had so little knowledge of what a "green job" is that it had to solicit suggestions for a definition. This despite, as Senator Charles Grassley has pointed out the Department of Labor has announced that it has given out hundreds of millions of dollars to provide "green jobs." And the stimulus has $80 billion in it to promote economic recovery by developing green jobs and the Labor Department doesn't even know what that is.

Peter Wehner points
out that President Obama made several initial errors as he entered office and he's paying the price now. He believed that the problems we faced in international relations were simply due to Bush's confrontational attitudes towards the rest of the world. He assumed that the way to fix the economy was to increase government spending and increase the reach of government. And he believed that his mere presence as president would change the world. If Obama wants to succeed as president, he needs to acknowledge his initial errors and alter his course.

The oil spill is coming back to bite Obama who campaigned by blaming George W. Bush for everything bad that went wrong thus providing the perception that a president is responsible for everything that goes on.

Kirsten Powers warns that labor and the left will continue revolting against the Democratic Party when it is running somewhat moderate candidates of whom the leftists don't approve. From her mouth to God's ears.

Here's some good news. Being grumpy helps you focus and think more carefully.

Obama is cubic zirconia.
There's a lot to that metaphor. Ross Kaminsky then goes on to explain how ridiculous it was for Obama to act as if, as president, he was responsible for something totally outside his control such as plugging the leak in the Gulf. But a man with Obama's view of government cannot admit that there is anything the government can't control. As Daniel Henninger writes that the power of the federal government has been exposed as the Wizard of Oz.

Of course, it might help if the Obama administration had been willing to accept help from the Netherlands when it was offered three days after the explosion. Instead they waited seven weeks to accept their help with skimming booms to remove oil from the water. It turns out that we need to change a law, the Jones Act, that requires that all goods in US waters be carried by US-flagged ships. That should be something that, with Obama's leadership, could have been sped through Congress to give the president to power to suspend the Jones Act in such an emergency. But that wasn't how Obama approached the crisis. Instead of searching for an ass to kick, perhaps Obama could have looked at how to accept aid from those who knew more about how to address such a crisis.

Why would the Obama administration think that it was in anyone's interest to drive BP out of business? Remember that lots of Americans work for BP and many pensioners depend on their dividends from BP. And why should BP pay the wages of oil-industry workers laid off due to the disastrous moratorium on deepwater drilling that the Obama administration has imposed.

The Democrats have decided that they need to get tougher on immigration. Their solution is to...change their rhetoric by calling those in the country who came in illegally "illegal immigrants" instead of their previous efforts to call them "undocumented workers." Yeah - that will do it. Change the rhetoric with poll-tested messages but not the policies.

Putting a warning label
on a copy of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other founding documents that parents might need to discuss with their children how 18th century documents may be inappropriate today just doesn't impress modern customers.

39 comments:

Pat Patterson said...

Though the question arises of what happened, if there ever was, to feminine solidarity? Or was that only valid if everyone was in agreement to begin with?

As much as I'm not a real fan of candidate Fiorina (I owned HP stock while she was the CEO) it's interesting that before the primary the California media did its best to ignore that race but now seems to have the resources and determination to cover trivilities. A legitimate issue could be her ineptness as CEO just as much as her rather obscure beginnings.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

So Cal Jim said...

What did I tell you, tfhr, T.V. is like one of those rotting zombies in a third rate sci fi movie. No mater how many times he gets smacked down he rises from the ashes and begs to be bitch slapped again. I'm beginning to think he likes it.

T.V., I weary of your childishness. The comments you've posted on these threads over time have shown you to be a disingenuous Lefty with very shallow political/social thinking. You may or may not be able to fart algorithms from your arse at will but assuming for the sake of argument that you can, your mathematical acumen only serves to confirm my opinion of you - an educated fool.


so, your idea of "debating" is a pre-adolescent exchange of insults? nice! a fart joke! maybe i should call you "beavis"

Your reply to tfhr is instructive in this regard:

Why do you mention that you are against "murder" to further "political agendas," when the subject of this thread is the boarding of the ship bound for Gaza by Israeli commandos and the resulting deaths? Since the only people killed were passengers and crew who attacked the commandos with lethal force (pipes, knives, and possibly guns), one must conclude you meant that the commandos "murdered" those men. Further, one can only conclude that you believe that Israel was "furthering" its "political agenda" by boarding the ship.


no, you can't. you guys keep on wanting to drag me into the boarding, but that wasn't what i was talking about.

listen, threads on discussion boards are policed by the owner and nobody else, and it is not uncommon for the discussion to migrate to related subject and not stay exactly on the point

Well, excuse me, T.V., but you are wrong on both counts. It wasn't murder, it was self defense. The blockade is a necessary element of Israel's defense against annihilation. You wouldn't say Russia and England were furthering their "political agendas" by defending themselves against Nazi Germany in WWII, would you? If not, then why would you suggest that Israel was merely furthering its political agenda by boarding that ship? Could it be because you're a hypocritical Lefty?

um, listen, dingbat, i never said anything like that, and your frantic effort to stuff words i never said into my mouth is just pitiful. grow up

Tacitus Voltaire said...

here, since you seem to find it hard to get the point, i'll make it simple for you:

So Cal Jim

Politically correct, multiculturalist Westerners insist that Islam is a "religion of peace."


these are imaginary people who say stupid things that you made up for them to say. this is called the "straw man" fallacy.

people are individuals with individual opinions, and you are not allowed to tell other people "what they believe". if you want to know what i think about islam in general, you need to ask me, not tell me

Muslims are perfectly a ease with death and slaughter as long as they're doing it to someone else.

it is ignorant and prejudiced (look the word up before you start complaining about it) to make sweeping statements about what hundreds of millions of people think or feel. is that clear enough?

oh, by the way - did you look up "tautology" yet?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

He believed that the problems we faced in international relations were simply due to Bush's confrontational attitudes towards the rest of the world. He assumed that the way to fix the economy was to increase government spending and increase the reach of government. And he believed that his mere presence as president would change the world.

ummmmmmm... no. wrong again

Tacitus Voltaire said...


Obama and 'Initial Error' on Diplomacy, Domestic Issues, and Expectations


this article is a virtual bonanza of stupid "straw man" opinions falsely attributed to obama

if you fail to understand what your adversaries really think, and instead waste your time making up stupid opinions and believing that that is reality, you will always fail disastrously, and never even understand why

see: 2006 and 2008 elections

tfhr said...

TV,

Though you did it again by posting twice about a topic (knife wielding "peace activists") from another thread - in which you "strayed" from Betsy's topic - you did eventually get around to hitting one of the actual topics cited in this post. I guess when she puts so many varied articles in the post, like a stopped clock, you will eventually rant into relevance. Well done.

So to your point about failing to understand what your adversaries really think, as ostensibly demonstrated in 2006 and 2008, I would extrapolate to Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, in the post 2008 anti-Obama reaction that swept Republicans to victory in those three states.

Understanding an adversary is important, to be sure, but I think maybe liberals have forgotten where they came from and may have taken the "sure" blue votes for granted. Maybe more focus on what the voters want as opposed to defeating a political opponent by whatever means necessary would be a better strategy.

Pat Patterson said...

Gee. it would be nice if TV stopped whining on each thread about how much he is being abused on a different thread. Anything to say on the links provided or are you still in shock over not making $250K a year any more. At this rate by time Obama leaves office TV will only be making $50K a year.

tfhr said...

Speaking of things from the past - yet still actual topics from this post - How about that offer from the Dutch government to help?

From Betsy's link:

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.


I gather from Obama's latest comments that his disdain for corporate CEO's - he said they would only tell him what he wanted to hear - that he was also not given to much discussion with the government of the Netherlands beyond turning down their help early on as the slick spread exponentially. Obama is going to have to explain why he turned down help that he could have accepted, facilitated, and used to help the people along the coast and the environment. That was a government to government action and Obama declined. Unbelievable.

As for the Jones Act:

After Homeland Security’s Michael Chertoff waived Jones Act provisions following Katrina in Sept 2005, the Act was recodifed in 2006. And in Chapter 121, “§ 12117, we find exceptions for oil spill response vessels.

Ҥ 12117. Oil spill response vessels

“(a) REQUIREMENTS.–A coastwise endorsement may be issued for a vessel that—

“(1) satisfies the requirements for a coastwise endorsement, except for the ownership requirement otherwise applicable without regard to this section;

“(2) is owned by a not-for-profit oil spill response cooperative or by members of such a cooperative that dedicate the vessel to use by the cooperative;

“(3) is at least 50 percent owned by individuals or entities described in section 12103(b) of this title; and

“(4) is to be used only for—

“(i) deploying equipment, supplies, and personnel to recover, contain, or transport oil discharged into the navigable waters of the United States or the exclusive economic zone; or

“(ii) training exercises to prepare to respond to such a discharge.

It would seem that the Jones Act is not an obstacle in any fashion. It certainly can be waived by Homeland Security. But more importantly, it looks like it’s entirely unnecessary to get a waiver if you consider the codified version the following year. So unless the entities are somehow disqualified via ownership and for profit status, why just Canada, Mexico and Norway, unless the administration is stubbornly sticking to old interpretation of the law? And why aren’t we diving at the experts… Belgium and the Netherlands?


( Taken from Flopping Aces @ http://tinyurl.com/35qzxa6 )

Bush got the act waived for Katrina and it isn't a valid obstacle now. What's Obama doing? (Besides not accepting help while bashing BP)

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Anything to say on the links provided or are you still in shock over not making $250K a year any more.

don't have any actual points to make so you descend to personal attacks? are you for real? you have absolutely no manners at all? really?

no, the $250k figure is for both my wife and myself - we file jointly, of course. i have not suffered any dimunition in my income, since you are so rude and immature to attempt to insult me on the subject. and my wife thanks you as well for your good manners

now, if and when you, tfhr, and So Cal Jim care to demonstrate that you are serious about debate and ideas, i will be happy to engage you at that time, sir!

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Maybe more focus on what the voters want as opposed to defeating a political opponent by whatever means necessary would be a better strategy

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 3-6, 2010. N=1,004 adults nationwide.

"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"

Should 71%
Should Not 26%

republicans only:

Should 55%
Should Not 39%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 8-9, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If the election for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?" If unsure: "Well, if you had to vote, which way would you lean?"

Democrat 41%
Republican 38%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 3-6, 2010

"If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in November were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?" If other/unsure: "Would you lean toward the Democratic candidate or toward the Republican candidate?"

Democrat 47%
Republican 44%

the 2010 election is still in the future. if and when the republican party is in control of any part of the federal government ever again, we'll see whether the american public thinks they know "what the voters want"

oh, and how is that Scott Brown, Tea Party Hero thing workin' out for ya?

Pat Patterson said...

That's not what you claimed originally or is this simply a case of admitting that your initial claim was misleading? Or were simply bragging about something that wasn't real because you never took tfhr's request to prove your income?

But since the matter of polls as been raised then it might be wise to consult one that has a much better reputation for reliability then the ones TV agrees with. The current Rassmussen generic ballot poll shows the for the last 8 months have the Republicans with a lead of from 2-9%. But also shows that 65% of the voters want to see a different makeup in the next Congress.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Rick Caird said...

TV, that is a dumb poll and what I expect from ABC/WaPo.

The question should be "Do you think the government should regulate CO2 if it will add 20% to the cost of a car and 50% to the cost of electricity".

Life is a series of trade offs, but these lefty polling outfits love to ask questions in isolation to get what they want.

They did the same thing for health care. They got all those nice poll results, but now have 63% opposed to what they passed. Great work. You and yours need to actually understand the polls.

Finally, unless you expect a huge turnout, a poll of registered voters is misleading. A poll of likely voters gives you a much better view of what the results will be. I would also add that
ABC polls are notorious for over polling Democrats. so, we have a poll that over polls Democrats and looks at registered voters. The surprise, TV, is that the difference in the generic ballot is so little. The implies huge problems for you and yours.

So yes "that Scott Brown, Tea Party Hero thing workin' out" just fine, thank you. Thanks for asking.

dave in boca said...

Tacitus V should check Gallup which had the Dems at 43% and Repubs at 49% last week until they ended up tied again. Go on cherry-picking until they pick up your exhausted body at the side of the trees.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

The question should be "Do you think the government should regulate CO2 if it will add 20% to the cost of a car and 50% to the cost of electricity".

i disagree with that conclusion. how do arrive at those numbers?

unless you can "show me your work", as they say in school, i have no reason to believe you did anything except pull those numbers out of a hat, or copy them gullibly from some "commentator" or blog page

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Rick Caird said...
So yes "that Scott Brown, Tea Party Hero thing workin' out" just fine, thank you. Thanks for asking.


Scott Brown: No pleasing the Tea Party

It’s not Scott Brown’s fault that the Tea Party movement’s antigovernment ideology conflicts with its antibailout rhetoric. When the Republican senator voted recently to let a financial regulation bill advance in the Senate, many Tea Party activists viewed him as a traitor. As one
leader complained to the Globe, “His career as a senator of the people lasted slightly longer than the shelf life of milk.’’ In fact, Brown’s vote served the public interest. What’s surprising is that the Tea Party movement, whose emergence was fueled by outrage over the 2008 bailout, would end up on the same side as Wall Street.


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/05/31/scott_brown_no_pleasing_the_tea_party/

Rick Caird said...

TV,

I don't have to show my work. I only need to point out to you that controlling CO2 is not free. If there is no number attached the implication is that it is free. That is what has happened with the health care bill. You seemed to have missed that concept. Liberals seem to have no concept of the cost of government.

Scott Brown is not a conservative and never has been. He is after all, from Massachusetts. You might remember the last two Senators from there: Kerry and Kennedy. It seems to me those two are far to the left of Brown.

The financial bill is a disaster on many levels. Primarily, though, it does nothing to address "To Big to Fail". In fact, it institutionalizes it and it gives this big pot of money to some kind of government regulators to give away as they see fit. It also has this amorphous concept of including any firm that might pose some "systemic risk" but does nothing to define that.

Look, only a fool would have let Chris Dodd, already being pushed out of the Senate for being corrupt, write this bill. There is no doubt in my mind that the corrupt Dodd will end up with some fancy lobbying position or working for one of these regulated financial outfits. This bill will end up being a Dodd payoff. This bill should never have advanced because it is, in itself, corrupt. You, on the other hand, have no friggin' idea what is in this bill. So, you think you have some meaningful comment on Scott Brown. But, as usual, you and meaningful are totally unacquainted.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Rick Caird said...
TV,

I don't have to show my work. I only need to point out to you that controlling CO2 is not free.


oh, but you used two very specific numbers. if you can't justify them in any way, then using them in a poll is worse than putting your thumb on the scales

Scott Brown is not a conservative and never has been

glad you agree

Rick Caird said...

TV,

OK, I'll specifically add the word "say" as in "if it will add, say, 20% to the cost of a car and 50% to the cost of electricity". It was obvious that was the implication rather than the specific number, but you want literal.

I will also add we have a very tentative and shallow recovery. At this point government can completely stop any progress. Ways to stop it include adding to the cost of energy (cap and trade or CO2 taxes) or increased income taxes.

So let me rephrase my poll question: "Are you in favor of CO2 controls if it gives us a double dip recession and increases unemployment". Somehow, I suspect that question will have a completely different result that the ABC questions.
So, I specifically ask you: "Are you in favor of CO2 restrictions if it will lead to a double dip recession?" Followup question: "Do you believe CO2 taxes will increase the cost of energy?"

I see you completely avoided telling us why you think the financial bill should go forward. You seem to have approved of Brown voting that way. So, tell us why we should do nothing about too big to fail and have a pot of money to bail out those who do fail and call that "reform". You don't have to show your work. Just a reason or two will do. I won't insist on literal.

Pat Patterson said...

TV missed the part of Rick Caird's hypothetical question in that it clearly said "if" these new rules resulted in those added costs. It could just as well been said that voting for these new rules will kill a puppy. That's why they are called hypotheticals and often force the listener to make and answer from a limited range of possibilities.

tfhr said...

TV,

"oh, and how is that Scott Brown, Tea Party Hero thing workin' out for ya?"

Hey, if it keeps another drunk, homicidal Kennedy off the road, that's a plus right there; Anything after that is just gravy.

I think Rick Caird has made the point very well in his 8:04 comment, but I would also add that if you're more concerned about polls than accomplishments, then keep up the cherry picking until you drop, as dave in boca said so well.

Why is it that you are so much more concerned about one poll or another rather than solving problems? Or is it that the problem that vexes you most is how to get lefty pols into office? I guess I'll never understand you but then again it seems like voters in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey really don't get you either.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

you're more concerned about polls than accomplishments

you are so much more concerned about one poll or another rather than solving problems


basically, tfhr just spends his whole time making up stupid opinions that for some reason he thinks other people believe

there's a popular phrase that's widely used to describe this kind of pointless mental activity, but since it involves a sexual metaphor that would be highly inappropriate for Betsy's site, i will leave it to you all to figure out what i have in mind

in the meantime, tfhr, can i ask you, and all the rest of the practitioners of the Straw Man Fallacy around here, to please stop making idiots of yourselves by presuming to tell other people what they believe

can't you debate like adults?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Rick Caird said...
TV, OK, I'll specifically add the word "say" as in "if it will add, say, 20% to the cost of a car and 50% to the cost of electricity"


oh, well, if your questions are based on purely hypothetical numbers that you pulled out of the place where the sun don't shine, then it's no holds barred for poll questions:

"would you be in favor of repealing the health care act if it meant that you and your family would be barred from getting insurance because it would not be profitable for the health insurance companies to insure you?"

"would you be be in favor of putting republicans back in charge of government if it meant that they would get us into new wars with people who didn't attack us, costing us $100 billion dollars a year that we are borrowing and putting on our children's credit card, like george bush did?"

"...if they raised the percentage of the federal tax burden that you pay by lowering taxes on billionaires radically and only lowering your taxes a little bit?

"would you vote for if they increased the federal deficit like the last republican administration did?"

no, you see, although nobody can ask a question without some kind of bias written into it, pollsters avoid asking poll questions where it's overwhelmingly obvious where the thumb on the scale is like your question

besides, you explicitly stated above that you think that people in general are too stupid to realize that capping emissions would cost money and raise prices

they're not

i know i am pretentious and annoying, but i don't make the mistake of thinking i am particularly smart. once you start thinking you are smarter than most people, you will surely be on the road to failure. keep that mind

Tacitus Voltaire said...

push polling, that's what you call it. you admitted that your numbers were pulled out of, uh, thin air. that means you're peddling hypotheticals (to put it politely) to influence the outcome of a question:

(wiksterpedia)

Perhaps the most famous use of push polls is in the 2000 United States Republican Party primaries, when it was alleged that George W. Bush's campaign used push polling to torpedo the campaign of Senator John McCain. Voters in South Carolina reportedly were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" The poll's allegation had no substance, but was heard by thousands of primary voters

The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll

Locomotive Breath said...

23 comments and 12 long ones by one commenter. Betsy, seriously? You need to institute a quota.

Pat Patterson said...

Bogus. There was never any evidence that such a poll was ever made since only one person claimed she heard it. Bush gave all the scripts of the polling and who made the polls to the McCain people who could not find one instance even remotely similar. However that certainly did not stop McCain from making the claim.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/16/news/mn-64956

The gullibility of some people on the left is truely heartwarming in that at least I know that the type of people who buy balloon payment loans and believe that Santa Claus works in DC are still around to be fleeced.

tfhr said...

TV,

If you want to debate like an adult you should try showing either the courtesy of staying on the topic central to the post or demonstrating that you have the attention span to do so if courtesy isn't your thing.

You've been slapped around in these threads because you continually evade the topic in favor of one variation or another about how you think it's just dandy to give away other peoples' money to provide services and functions that are not the responsibility of the government.

The original thread was about the "peace activists" and their behavior toward the Israeli boarding party. You've never said where you stand on the event though you offered up some confused commentary about murder and political agendas, to which you were questioned and to which you never respond.

Now if you'd like to be in charge of child nutrition because you think government knows better than parents, I'd suggest that you go petition the White House to set you up as the Basic Food Groups Czar. They'd probably go for it and then you'd could sponsor some sort of catchy slogan like, "An Apple a Day Keeps the Health Insurance - Health Care Provider Away". That'll help.

Or you could stop whining about what a victim you are here and simply engage in an on-topic debate.

Old Retired Petty Officer said...

Been wonderin' bout that Green Jobs thingy myself. I have been doin' a bit o' research on it and I have yet to figger it out.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do know how to read and write and my reading comprehension is high. I have had language skills that would match that of any person with post graduate degrees being brought up by school teachers, as I was.
But for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea what a "green job" is.
I would greatly appreciate if someone out there would give me a definition. And not a definition as given by the current administration in Washington. I was in the Sea Service for twenty years and know when someone is blowing smoke up my backside.

Pat Patterson said...

A green job in So Cal is 25 Mexicans in a maquiladora making turbine blades for a windmill. For a company that is based in San Diego and is totally dependent on US and California tax incentives and subsidies. The truly green part is that the owners can afford to buy the new Tesla all-electric sport car which of course is also subsidized the the feds.

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson and Old Retired Petty Officer,

Green jobs are more than that! They were the raison d'ĂȘtre (fr. phrase used here for the amusement of ORPO with his language skills) for Barack Obama associate, Van Jones' placement as "Green Jobs" Czar. Like most "green jobs", his was a position paid for by the tax payer. We could go on about Jones' real goals are for America but given his self identification as a Marxist, I think that's obvious.

On the flip side of the "green jobs" question is Spain where many manufacturing jobs and steel industry jobs departed the country when policies intended to create "green jobs" actually sent work overseas. Ironically, one such location to receive those jobs was the United States. Good for those rare American workers finding employment these days but not so good for the pipe dream purveyors of windmill cars and geo-thermal aircraft.

mark said...

tfhr,
Yes,please keep chastising others for going off topic. When I wrote that Mitch Daniels would have to answer for his time as Bush's OMB director, you went out off-topic to make a snide (and absurd) comment regarding my knowledge of how laws are passed. You even recently hijacked a thread about Betsy's quiz bowl to go into a diatribe about crime.
Perhaps you feel the need to respond to every thread. Feel free to take a break. Most of us are guilty of going off-topic and dipping into incivility. Try not to whine.
And lastly: Where's my pizza? I'm hungry, dammit!

Pat Patterson said...

I think we've all gone off topic on occasion but nothing compares to TV's latest where he simply recognizes no topic except himself. But when it is suggested that one person in the Executive offices is responsible for budget deficits or surpluses it is certainly understandable that the rest of us can assume that the person who made that point simply doesn't understand or be aware of how laws are made and passed.

tfhr said...

mark,

You got me on the quiz bowl. Forgive me for expressing my concern about safety in Chicago, the location of said quiz bowl.

About Mitch Daniels and budgets, don't you feel that Congress' role in spending is relevant? Daniels' popularity stems largely from his ability to rein in government spending in Indiana at a time when our Federal Government is spending like drunk sailors. You went to the OMB job Daniels once held, so I just figured you wanted to discuss federal spending too. My bad, I thought it was relevant.

Of course you don't seem to understand that out of control government spending is a problem, so naturally, I suppose you would not take any sort of liking to Daniels. Others have a different view.

Now about that "pizza"...remove the tinfoil from your head, grab a fork and step outside. Your slice has government cheese on it! Mmmm...it's tasty...and free! It's on the way. Really.

Rick Caird said...

"i know i am pretentious and annoying, but i don't make the mistake of thinking i am particularly smart. once you start thinking you are smarter than most people, you will surely be on the road to failure. keep that mind"

As you say, you are pretentious and annoying. I can also see why you do not think you are particularly smart. You actually pretend to be dumber than you are by failing to understand my very basic point that CO2 restrictions are not free. The ABC poll questions also do not make such a point. You make the silly claim that people do not assume CO2 restrictions will be free, but the polling on the health care issue has shown time and time again that if the question about health care are asked in isolation with no reference to costs and restrictions, the results favor health care reform. But, when there are actually known costs and restrictions, such as the current bill, the results change radically. We cannot put real numbers on the cost because the restrictions have not been written yet. However, a quick Google (CO2 restrictions cost) will give you adequate background to begin to assess costs. Here is one example:

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d27-EPA-proposes-CO2-restrictions-declares-war-on-taxpayers

The funny part is that all this CO2 restriction stuff is based on two discredited IPCC report on climate change. There is no indication at all that increased CO2 concentrations precede increased temperatures. In fact, it is the opposite.

You attempt to evade such an elementary point, by pulling out the strawman technique. You might just as well use the Obama variant which is:

"Some people say, if you put Republicans back in charge of government.... all kinds of bad things will happen".

To amplify the point you cannot seem to understand, there is a substantial difference between a push poll and including factual data as part of the question.

You did get the idea in your question on the tax burden, but seems as if it was an accident. I will leave it as an exercise for you to consider the how that hypothetical question differs from the others you pose.

BTW, I still don't see any attempt to justify moving the financial reform bill forward. Have you abandoned that line now that you are clearly in over your head?

mark said...

tfhr,
So your diatribe was all due to concern about Betsy's quiz bowl team and not an excuse to pontificate on yet another topic on which you fancy yourself an expert? See, you've lied to yourself so many times, you don't even realize how absurd you've become.
I guess I'll pass on the pizza, after all. I don't ask for, want or accept government handouts.
When you recently wrote you were being recruited by two organizations vying for your skills, I didn't realize you meant Dominos and Papa Johns. So who was the lucky winner?

Pat Patterson said...

The main thing about going off-topic is the trolls do not have to address contradictory links. mark, you can do better than to resort to TV-like ad hominems. Regardless of any real or imagied provacations.

tfhr said...

mark,

Wow. I had no idea you would look down your nose at people that work for Dominoes and the like. What does that say about you?

There was a time before I finished my degree in which I held three jobs at once. I started my morning at Pizza Hut working until the lunch rush was done. I bagged groceries at Publix in the afternoon and I worked at a savings and loan at night and on Saturday mornings. That doesn't make me special. It did make me tired.

Working six days a week made me a master at getting everything I needed to do - done on Sunday - whether that meant an oil change, laundry, a haircut, most of the cooking for the week, you name it. Time is money and sometimes time is just time and I did my time working jobs that you apparently now hold in such low regard. That time also made me determined to get my degree and to push myself to find a career that inspired me to work even harder.

So I've had that career in the Army and I may step into another but along the way I will always respect the people that work those "menial" jobs at fast food restaurants, delivering pizzas, stocking shelves at night, so that they can make ends meet, so they can save money, or so they can put themselves or someone else through school. I'll continue to respect them for many reasons but also because I've been one of them. I'm not sure what sort of silver platter you had your life handed to you on but I would expect an educated man to have a higher regard for people that don't stand around with their hand out but find work where they can find it.

equitus said...

I didn't realize you meant Dominos and Papa Johns. So who was the lucky winner?

And you want us to take you seriously, mark?

mark said...

Nice try, tfhr. Nowhere did I denigrate those who work low-paying jobs. I worked my way through college working at McDonald's and painting houses. Most adults who work those jobs fall in the "working-poor" category. I'd like to see them (and their children) provided health-care. Conservatives here have labeled them "undeserving" and "freeloaders".
Your feeble attempt at class warfare is as pathetic as when you you played the race-card with Michael Steele. You've proven time and time again that you'll say anything, no matter how antithetical to your previously-stated "beliefs".
That I had a "silver-platter" handed to me is laughable. Kinda like you saying that two (three-letter) agencies are recruiting you. While I'm dubious (though entertained) about your tales of heroics while in Iraq, I have no doubt that you lack the expertise and judgement to help our agencies conduct the war on terror and other endeavors. You're a legend in your own mind. Nobody else's.

tfhr said...

You weren't taking a shot at people that work for Domino's or Papa John's? Sure sounded like it to me. Back peddle if you like but where and when did I play the "race card" with Steele? Seriously, I'll allow for your characteristic off-topic commentary on that one, if you could please provide some sort of clarification. But I have to say it is no surprise that you accuse me of racism. You've tried just about everything else here - except actually debating on the specific topic, of course.

"Tales of heroics?" I guess sitting around carping about Iraq, as you've done, makes people who've actually DONE something sound "heroic" to you but I'm just one of many thousands of Americans that have done their job so you can sit back in comfort and mock them, their leaders, and ideals. That's your right, just remember it is protected by people better than you.

And closing with the topic of war, it's interesting to see that you used the term "war on terror", mark. Better HOPE the party faithful don't hear about that.