Friday, September 23, 2011

Cruising the Web

Daniel Henninger points out that there are majorities waiting to pass true tax reform. There have been proposals out there that a bipartisan majority might support such as what was put forward in the Bowles-Simpson Commission. However, Obama would prefer his class warfare arguments instead of reaching for the success and legacy that he could garner by leading the efforts for a true pro-growth tax reform package.

Ah, now that's settled. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that, for purposes of the law, a year is 365 days. Good to know.

Here's some persuasive evidence that Barack Obama is the "most economically ignorant president" ever. Apparently, he's very determined that productivity is bad for economic growth and nothing Larry Summers or Christine Romer were able to say could convince him otherwise. No wonder he was blaming unemployment on ATMs.

Joel Griffith finds a clause in Obama's jobs plan that would require states to forfeit their 11th Amendment rights if they accept any federal financial assistance at all. What a gift for trial lawyers.

Obama might need to check out how the Buffett rule has worked in California.

I don't know if it's a good thing if the most memorable moment of the GOP debate last night was a dog poop joke (albeit a funny one). Gary Johnson justified his otherwise inexplicable presence on the stage last night.

My general impression from last night is that Rick Perry has gotten worse with each debate. He is not ready for totally predictable attacks and he is unprepared on too many questions. He stumbles even with what are clearly prepared attack lines on Romney. He hasn't demonstrated that he is ready to reach beyond his current jobs. His most heartfelt answer was when talked about being "lobbied" by a 31-year-old woman who had cervical cancer and who spoke with him begging him to require young girls to get the HPV vaccine. But it turns out that he met with the dying woman after he had already signed the executive order.

Some in North Carolina are wondering if it would hurt Rick Perry that he once denigrated North Carolina Barbecue by saying that he had had "road kill that tasted better than that." Sorry, I've lived in North Carolina for 28 years and have never been able to develop much liking for the state's vinegar-based barbecue. There's nothing wrong with a person preferring his home-state cuisine, so this is the least of Perry's worries.

UPDATE: Apparently, Gary Johnson plagiarized Rush Limbaugh's dog poop joke without giving him attribution. I'd give a kid a zero for doing that on a paper. Since Johnson's support was close to zero already, he may be deserving his poll numbers.

UPDATE II: He's denying he got it from Rush and is saying he got it from another talk-show host. So I'll cut him some slack, but he should have prefaced it by saying, "As I heard on the radio the other day..." or something like that. Perhaps Rush is the plagiarist....


ic said...

"for purposes of the law, a year is 365 days"

So every four years, we'll have a lawless day. The Fed could grab whatever they wanted from us then arrest us for protesting.

ic said...

Barack Obama is the "most economically ignorant president"

How about the "most ignorant president"?

""We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.

A railroad between continents?

...Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc."

He's the most corrupt and most incompetent president we've ever had.

$535 million, more than a half billion, to his multibillionaire bundler; tried to intimidate a General to change his testimony on Lightsquared to favor his own investments in Lightsquared and his other sugar daddy Soros; sent guns to Mexico ...

mark said...

I thought the most memorable moment was the audience booing a soldier fighting in Iraq. Very classy.

Betsy Newmark said...

Mark, this also bothered me, but, according to this blogger who was at the debate, it was only one or two people and the crowd shushed him up.

Still, it would have been notable if any of the candidates had spoken up and chided the booing guy and thanked the soldier for his service. No matter what their opinion is on DADT, this man has been over there sacrificing for his country and it was rather surprising that no one acknowledged that. That was the lack of class that struck me since I'm so used to conservatives always thanking service men and women for their service.

Betsy Newmark said...

Santorum claims that he didn't hear the boos.

However, he could have thanked him for his service last night since I believe it was Santorum to whom the question was directed.

mark said...

And does anyone really believe Santorum didn't hear the boos? Perhaps the candidates didn't hear the cheers for killing inmates at the NBC debate either (It's one thing to be for the death penalty, it's another to cheer for it.) Or perhaps the shouts to "let him die" at the CNN debate for the hypothetically uninsured man. Of course it's just a few people, but it speaks volumes about the candidates who are too afraid of looking weak to show a sliver of courage and decency.

Pat Patterson said...

And I also would expect mark or President Obama to have a sliver of courage and decency to denounce when the latter's warmup act said, "Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong!"

tfhr said...

mark, of course, compares dead American troops to the dead fish in one of his Peace Corps gigs gone wrong in Guatemala. This must be where he gets his penchant for demanding that we all must condemn every slight, real or perceived, or lest we fall short in his eyes.

So sensitive is mark that he can also divine what others heard or did not hear while in a venue that he himself was not present. No surprise there because mark is a Progressive and therefore knows, by his very nature, what others cannot. It is a heavy burden for him to bear but yet he soldiers on. Thank you for your service mark.

mark said...

Does anyone here really think Santorum didn't hear the boos? You do realize, I hope, that many judgments and opinions are given here without hard evidence. Sometimes common-sense and an ability to cut through the b.s. is all it takes.
I realize that tfhr is at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to distinguishing between opinion and fact. He thought a "decrease in communiques" was evidence that OBL was dead, ignoring both fact and logic.
tfhr, do you not understand what a stunning example of incompetence and stupidity you displayed with that comment?
I'm not into fear-mongering (even when Obama does it. I have no hard evidence that he does, just a strong suspicion), but it should scare anyone here to think that tfhr might be telling the truth about working in the intelligence community.

Dr Weevil said...

'mark' writes that "the audience" booed a gay soldier. That does not appear to be even close to the truth. Ann Althouse listened to the tape several times and reports one or at most two boos from one individual. She also quotes someone else who was there and quite close to the booer:

"I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back... The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, 'Shhhh!' 'No!' 'Shut up, you idiot!' etc."

Sounds to me like "the audience" as a whole behaved very well, unlike 'mark', who is willing to make the entire crowd responsible for what one of them did, without even knowing whether he was a Republican or an agent provocateur.

Of course, this is the same 'mark' who insults people behind their backs and applies the grossest obscenities to anyone who disagrees with him. (We all know what the B in 'TBP' stands for, 'mark', and only a hateful foul-tongued loser would use that particular acronym on a high-school teacher's website, knowing that some of her students read it.)

Pat Patterson said...

Accusing others of arguing minus facts immediately asking if the readers 'believes' some event occurred without offering any facts as to the magnitude or accuracy. Or like those bogus robocalls against McCain only exist in the rabbit ears of a few people.

mark said...

agent provocateur?

Well aren't you the little conspiracy theorist, weevil?
I remember your intriguing hypothesis that a terrorist was dressed up as a janitor or teacher waiting to attack, and that was why Bush stayed in the classroom reading "My Pet Goat". That was the most bizarre (and dumbest) post until tfhr's "decrease in communiques" equals OBL's death idiocy.
I think any high-schoolers here are more concerned with real issues like the economy and climate change than with my silly putdown. Gross? I would say calling labeling millions of fellow citizens "parasites" is a bit grosser.

Dr Weevil said...

You remember very little, mark. Al Qaeda used a pair of fake journalists to assassinate the head of the Northern Alliance two days before 9/11. They might very well have planned an assassination attempt on Bush to coincide with the main 9/11 attack, and it is both "bizarre" and "dumb "to deny that that was a possibility. It would have been stupid for Bush's Secret Service men to ignore that possibility and have him jump in his limousine at the previously-planned location without checking the area first.

As for the filthy language you use here, it would get you suspended if you used it in the classroom - unless you were the teacher, in which case it would get you fired. It is totally inappropriate for a high school teacher's website, and you know it. 'Parasite' may be rude in some contexts, but it is not in any way obscene. By the way, aren't you a high school teacher? I had the impression that you are, and have asked you before, but you've never answered the question. Why not?

Of course, you carefully evade the main point of my criticism, which is that you accused "the audience" as a whole of doing something that one member of the audience did, something which the rest of them very much objected to. What his motives were we do not know, since he hasn't been identified. Are you going to withdraw your denunciation of the entire audience, or will you continue to insist that every member of a group of hundreds of people is responsible for what any single member of the group does?

tfhr said...


All of this back and forth must be a relief to you as it allows you to rattle on about anything other than the crap job Obama is doing as President. You voted for him and we didn't but somehow you've got the idea that others' grasp of logic and reason are in some way deficient when compared to yours?! Amazing.

As for my early prognostication about bin Laden, I can only say that compartmentalization of intelligence is used to protect operations as much as sources and methods. I'm very much a part of the sources and methods aspect in that I collect. Go read up on the acronym TCPED and get back to me.

Unless an individual is privy to the operational side of the issue, it is unlikely that you will have enough information to make a sure call on an issue like the one in question. There are still open source methods that can give insight and I did feel that bin Laden's penchant for seeking the spot light as the AQ leader had become conspicuously absent. Given that he had been very public during the Clinton administration and regularly during the early W. years, I found it surprising that his public oratory as the leader of AQ had come to a full stop. If you cannot see any logic in that, then you're an idiot.

It would seem that the powers-that-be in Pakistan had successfully impressed upon OBL that he needed to keep a lower public profile. I think as time passes we will find out exactly who was supporting OBL and if his cooperation was a requirement for safe keeping. I know you'll still be obsessing over the notion that "enhanced interrogation" had nothing to do with the discovery of OBL's courier service. Curiously you'll not be obsessing over GITMO though it will still be open.

I know that you were certain that he was alive all along because as a Progressive, we understand that you, by your very nature, know all. Why you never disclosed OBL's exact location sooner is a mystery but if I had to guess, I'd say that you were probably too busy looking at your reflection in all of those Obama "HOPE" and "CHANGE" posters on your walls. Incidentally, would you be so apt to accept the claim that OBL was killed though no photos or a body were ever displayed if this had happened before 2009? I wonder.

On the other hand I did say that I believed he was dead years ago though I never said I was certain because there was not yet any proof. Go find where I ever said that I was certain of his demise.

In the Intelligence Community we are expected to offer our opinions candidly. Couching a position to cover your ass by not taking a stance is worthless. You offer what you consider to be the best possible intelligence to a decision maker but you do everyone a great disservice by taking a non-committal position based on the information you posses. I've briefed many flag officers on many issues, strategic and operational, and I've briefed war fighters as they've prepared to go into battle and I've supplied them with up to the minute intelligence when they are actually in contact with the enemy. I always tell them what I think I know, what I don't know and try to give them the best options for possible courses of action.

You provide a "most likely", "least likely", and a "most dangerous" selection of potential courses of action that an enemy might adopt. That's how it's done. There's no place in there for Progressive political posturing.

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

"I found it surprising that his public oratory as the leader of AQ had come to a full stop."

Nice try, tfhr, but you know full well there were "comuniques". You said so yourself. Your switch to "public oratory" shows you finally realize the idiocy of your first post. You can change your story, but you can't change the facts. Your incompetence is exceeded only by your dishonesty.

Sorry to put a hole in your conspiracy theory, but you are implying that the secret service was concerned about a terrorist/teacher/janitor assassinating the president, and decided to leave him surrounded by children. I think the ss are well-trained to bravely sacrifice themselves. Not kids.
Silly man.

tfhr said...


You're really in a snit. What is dishonest about what I had to say? I've said it many ways but the gist is the same. I believed that OBL was dead because we were no longer hearing from him. How you've come to the conclusion that I'm somehow being dishonest about that is just boggling.

And what's wrong with you about the Secret Service holding Bush in place until they determined when and how the President would be moved from his location while the country was under attack? Your suggestion that they or the President chose to surround themselves with children for protection is just perverse.

I think you're starting to snap out, mark. Go back to your safe place and dream that it's 21 JAN 2009 and Obama has just announced that he will close GITMO and how proud you were of him and that like GITMO, he would soon make good on his promises to create jobs and...uh oh...maybe you should kick it back to 2008 before your man had to actually do anything but run for office. That's all he's doing now, so it should be pretty easy to visualize.

mark said...

I've said it many ways but the gist is the same

No, tfhr. It's actually not the same. You previously claimed a "decrease in comuniques" and now, finally realizing how idiotic that is, you're falsely saying there were no communications. That is a lie.

Are you actually buying into the theory that the SS thought there may have been a terrorist in the building and continued to let Bush sit among the children while they stood in the back of the classroom. That is what Weevil is speculating.

I'd like to assume you're not accusing the SS of such cowardice and incompetence, but those are things you seem to gravitate towards.