snip-news commentary

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    And your last is exactly why I'm DONE for the foreseeable future. She was the only ACCEPTABLE candidate of the four!
    Further... look at the staging and subsequent fragging of Jindal's rebuttal. So many idiots, so few job slots... and yet they seem to prevail on all sides.
    You are seeing right now how much 'experience' means and what sort of experience it is that really counts.

    [​IMG]

    What's happening now is a dose of political ipecac for our society. It may kill us, it may not.

    The messiah is living up to my worst expectations, he is everything I was afraid he might be and that is enough.

    Whichever, I aint gonna waste my words on the sort of noise and shitslinging I could easily come up with. He is still my President and I'm always hoping he wakes some morning, looks in the mirror and says WTF!!!
    I'll save my bile for the peripheral people, like Dodd and Frank, Pelosi and Reid, Olbermann and Matthews... it wont bother me a bit to stand over them and take a virtual piss on them when things are at their worst.

    God help us.. 'cause now we really need it.

    That's mine for a week or so..
     
    #1
    pettyfog, Mar 3, 2009
  2. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    You're 100% right Spencer. I need to do better. However, I'm too depressed from this journey down the road to socialism to bother. Also, I'm busy rethinking/revamping my parenting philosophies - what an injustice I'm doing to my little Fulham fans to teach them how to be responsible for themselves. How will they survive in this new Obama world with my old, out-dated ways. I'm sorry, but this notion of expecting the government to take care of all your problems takes some adjusting to.
     
    #2
    Clevelandmo, Mar 4, 2009
  3. WhitesBhoy

    WhitesBhoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Beach, For Now
    RE: Re: snip-news commentary

    What's good for the goose, is good for the gander??

    I don't know, I'm just askin'.
     
    #3
    WhitesBhoy, Mar 4, 2009
  4. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Re: RE: Re: snip-news commentary

    I dont know WTH you're talking about but LOL anyway
     
    #4
    Clevelandmo, Mar 4, 2009
  5. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    so, as I understand it, in December, President Bush and the Democratic Congressional majority pushed through a bailout bill that recapitalized Wall Street companies and bailed out AIG and other insurance/investment interests. Congressional Republicans [and folks like me] thought it was bad business to give taxpayer money away to the people who had destroyed our economy, and said so. I remember commending the Republicans and being told I was wrong and didn't understand the problem.

    In February, President Obama and a Democratic Congressional majority push through ANOTHER Wall Street recapitalization and bail of of AIG. Congressional Republicans [and folks like me] thought it was bad business. Mostly because several people on this very board convinced me that I didn't understand the problem, I didn't join the Congressional Republicans in saying that it was a bad idea. I know when others are smarter than me, you see.

    One difference between the two giveaways, was that the former sent all the cash to Wall Street with little oversight and no accountability, whereas the latter sent the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cash to Wall Street with a TINY SMIDGEN of oversight and a PALE IMITATION of accountability. Another difference was that the latter giveaway included some financial support for people who lost or who are about to lose their homes as a result of the criminal activities of the Wall Street bankers, mega-insurance companies we're giving money to, and did nothing to punish the corrupt bond raters who were paid to lie to investors about it. Another difference was that the second giveaway also provided some funding for infrastructure-related enterprises to get people working and paying taxes.

    Evidently, it is the fact that a tiny amount of this money went to the victims of these crimes as opposed to all of it going to the perpetrators that constitutes the difference between good Bush capitalism and bad Obama socialism.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm unable to withstand an onslaught of such solid logic. I'm convinced. Thanks for explaining it to me so succintly. I don't know why I thought the bill signed by Bush AND the bill signed by Obama were equally flawed and profligate. Obviously, as it has turned out, it was because not only do I not understand capitalism, I actively hate capitalism. Who knew? Well, who aside from Pettyfog, Mo, CNBC, and Fox News, that is.
     
    #5
    HatterDon, Mar 5, 2009
  6. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Don, I pretty much agree with you. I didnt support the Bush bailout anymore than I supported the Obama spendulous package. While I scratched my head at the former, I didnt question it much because everybody said we needed it. Heck, you had former Pres. Clinton saying the country might even make money on the Bush bailout. And the truth is I dont understand the banking industry, the US economy, and global economics well enought to have criticized it. However, when I heard about the pork included in that bailout, like money to manufacture toy arrows (which I do find more worthwhile than giving money to ACORN), I criticized that plenty.

    If Obama's (or Congress's) package had been just a stimulus package for infrastructure and saving jobs then I wouldnt have complained. But we both know it wasnt. It included plenty of earmarks that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Whatever you think about the particular merit of those earmarks, they should have been subjected to their own debate on another day. When republicans complained about the package, Obama applied very partisan pressure. When Obama said he would take any good idea from Republicans or Democrats, he didnt. Republicans complained about not being included in the drafting of the stimulus package and I didnt hear any Dems countering that accusation. Obama talked about "responsibility", "change", "bi-partisanism", an "end to business as usual" and we have none of that.

    Instead, we got pork, entitlements, and the biggest spending package in the history of our government - on the tails of Bush's huge spending bailout (dont know where it ranked, probably second). If you think it's harsh to call it lies then I'll change it to "where's the beef"? Where's the "time to make the hard decisions", "time to get up, dust ourselves off, and get back to work".

    If Obama really meant "change" then he could've sent the package back to Congress and told them to get the pork out, but he didnt. He would have had all of the country on his side. But he didnt because he isnt change. He wanted the Dems to have all their little pet programs funded. Instead, he gets on TV and chastises Repubs for standing in the way while Americans lose their jobs and homes. Yes, fear. The stuff everyone always accuses Bush of using as a motivator. Obama has shown to be just as adept at employing the power of fear.

    Where the hell is that, huh? We're giving our childrens children nothing but debt and a socialism that most likely will never be turned back.

    Where's that too. Were just borrowing to pay for what we already borrowed. He's not asking anyone to earn anything.

    Okay sorry for the rant. Don basically this is the difference for me. For the Bush bailout, I didnt know if it would work (reasons given above), but based on history and common sense, I know the Obama spedulus package is not going to work. In the long run it will only make things worse.
     
    #6
    Clevelandmo, Mar 6, 2009
  7. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Mo, thanks for your well thought out and well-measured reply. If you were a historian rather than an engineer, however, you'd recognize nearly every Republican complaint about this bailout as slight paraphrases of Republican moans about the New Deal and the dangerous socialist practices like social security, federal depositers insurance, unemployment insurance, that came out of it.

    Much of the New Deal didn't work, didn't work for more than a month, or worked counter to the way it was designed to work, but conservative Republicans have been trying to repeal the entire package ever since -- gutting of the SEC and the attempts to "privatize" Social Security are just two recent examples. In their inability to revoke most of the remaining New Deal programs in the last 70 or so years, Republicans have continued to label anything that provides any assistance to anyone who isn't rich as socialism.

    "Redistribution of income is socialism" is the battle cry. This means that since a rich person pays more in taxes than a poor person [and this is quite often NOT the case], then ANY government program that is designed to help poor people -- Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC, Head Start, CHiP for example -- is an example of socialism run amok and damaging the birthright of our country. For this reason, giving bailout money to investment bankers and mortgage insurance companes is good, but giving it to education, infrastructure, or mortgage relief is bad. Or, to put it mathematically, government handouts to the rich=capitalism, and government handouts to the poor=socialism.

    Many of us don't believe that providing medical care for the young and the elderly so as to increase the survival rate at both ends of the age spectrum is a horrible program for our children to inherit. Unfortunately, instead of Republican politicians and their conservative backers telling us exactly why it is bad to do these things, they just say that their socialist, and so are those of us who believe that they're good. It sure beats explaining on television why you're against everything that's not for the rich.

    Instead, we get, "To hell with the poor in spirit; it's the rich that are going to heaven. So don't do anything for the less fortunate. If they're too lazy to get as rich as my best buddies here, then let them suffer on earth and burn in hell." We get this from the cream of Conservative philosophers: Rush Limbaugh, Seig Heil Barbie, Joe the Plumber, and some 14-year-old kid who whines a lot.
     
    #7
    HatterDon, Mar 6, 2009
  8. WhitesBhoy

    WhitesBhoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Beach, For Now
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound (or more) of cure.
     
    #8
    WhitesBhoy, Mar 6, 2009
  9. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    [​IMG]
    - therightscoop.com

    - - - - -- - - - -

    Journo School Editorial {Winner of the Week - Dan Rather Award }:

    - via TheOTherMcCain on dead tree news deathwatch

    I suggest you who did well in English Composition in High School pretend this guy is at the next desk and the teacher told you to exchange and mark up each other's papers.
    I assume the writer is a senior. My question always has been "Why is Journalism a four year major?"

    Never mind his suppositions on the superiority of the news room as to {Ratherish} 'professionalism'.
     
    #9
    pettyfog, Mar 20, 2009
  10. WhitesBhoy

    WhitesBhoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Beach, For Now
    The problem with this thought process is that it does not recognize that there already are controls in place to regulate blogs and bloggers. It is called common law libel, and if you had your choice, you would not want to be sued for it.

    "Legitimate writer"?? To be topical, isn't that bit like a "legitimate sandwich maker"?
     
    #10
    WhitesBhoy, Mar 20, 2009
  11. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    uh, yeah.. but you're missing my point, so I bolded it.

    My point is that most bloggers construct their thoughts more coherently, and with fewer misuses of the language.
     
    #11
    pettyfog, Mar 20, 2009
  12. WhitesBhoy

    WhitesBhoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Beach, For Now
    I got that. I just think my point is more important.
     
    #12
    WhitesBhoy, Mar 20, 2009
Similar Threads: snip-news commentary
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Free Urban Flyers & good Entertainment commentary site Aug 22, 2007

Share This Page