I think you alternate between these 2 personas, and I sense that you've done it for so long that it feels normal and comfortable to you, but I want to urge you to pack up Radical Lefty Obama and stow him away with the rest of your Harvard Law School memorabilia. I know you — the Moderate Obama — have impressed some very useful people over the years by parading about as Radical Lefty Obama.
Like yesterday, you gave that Republicans-are-extremists speech, and the New York Times loved it:
Mr. Obama provided a powerful signal on Tuesday that he intends to make this election about the Republican Party’s failure to confront, what he called, “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well. His remarks promise a tough-minded campaign that will call extremism and dishonesty by name.Notice how, in expressing its love, the NYT portrayed Radical Lefty Obama as Moderate Obama. It's Moderate Obama that American voters find so appealing. You don't need all that left-wing economics and race-and-gender demagoguery. I think what people like about you — you, who are famously, sublimely likeable — is the normal person who seems to be in harmony with everyone. We — many of us — voted for you because you seemed to offer to bring us together, to end the rancor.
Be that Obama.
Note to Mitt Romney: If Obama doesn't want to be that Obama, you can be that guy.
Posts
469 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 469 Newer› Newest»It may or may not be great campaign advice, but I, for one (or one of many?) am completely tired of the sugar-coated BS from him. All of them, honestly.
Say what you mean and mean what you say, Mr. Obama. Then let the chips fall where they may.
If he did that, I might have a teeny bit of the respect for the man that you appear to have.
Your faith is impressive.
"... the other Obama —Radical Lefty Obama —is a person I will not vote for..."
You did the 1st time, all the information was there, he's not going to change. I think it's interesting you would consider to vote again for a man who is driving a stake into your expertise, The Constitution.
I find it interesting that you're teaching something that means nothing, that stands for nothing.
Are we at the point of adding "Studies" after it yet?
Please raise your game.
Raise yours, Althouse.
We know what you wrote and a number of commenters have pointed out the contradiction in your writing. Yes, it is good campaign advice. No, it is the wrong advice for this man, because he is incapable of putting the genie back in the bottle.
We have seen who he is. We have seen the endless erection of "some say" strawmen. We have seen him demonize the Supreme Court and a budget plan he's never even read. We have seen him keep his promise to make energy costs skyrocket. We have seen his racist appeals to his angry parasite base.
He has a record that he cannot run on. Therefore, to do what you suggest is impossible for him.
And if you want us to stop hitting you over the head with your vote, then stop writing drivel like you, who are famously, sublimely likeable.
Yup. A combination of battered wife and Stockholm Syndrome.
"I can see the good person inside, he just needs some help. I'll give it to him and things will be wonderful!"
Better put some ice on that, Ann.
Althouse Memo to Green Bay Packers on How to Win:
1) Control Line of Scrimmage.
2) Limit Turnovers.
3) Convert Third Downs.
4) Score Touchdowns instead of Field Goals in Red Zone.
Then you'll win.
And a blog with no comments is a diary.
Stop asking me how to figure out the right way to lie to the gullible so that Obama can win or I'll avert MY eyes, not that it would matter.
Of course I "want him to lose", because he deserves to be fired. Not because he is a Democrat, but because he sucks at his job. He has no solutions to our problems that aren't worse than the problems themselves.
He is incapable of doing the job he was hired to do. You want me to pad his resume? He works for me,it's time for his review, he fails, he's fired. That's it.
If you truly want the answer to this question, ask David Axelrod. I sure as hell am not going to do his job for him for free on your blog.
Has there been a President who was re-elected on essentially the same platform/strategy as his initial successful campaign?
MadMan, I agree with you. Use whatever metaphor you want: that horse is out of the barn, genie is out of the bottle, etc. He can't go back to 2008 Obama.
That's why I think he needs to do a mea culpa of sorts for the past 4 years, show some humility and accountability, and reflect on how he's grown in office (rather than say learned on the job). He needs to persuade that he can be a positive force and really bring people together to get this country out of the doldroms.
If he tries to paint some alternate reality of the past four years, like the only thing between us and the shining city on the hill is Mitch McConnell, then he's going to get trampled.
Notice how, in expressing its love, the NYT portrayed Radical Lefty Obama as Moderate Obama. It's Moderate Obama that American voters find so appealing. You don't need all that left-wing economics and race-and-gender demagoguery. I think what people like about you — you, who are famously, sublimely likeable — is the normal person who seems to be in harmony with everyone. We — many of us — voted for you because you seemed to offer to bring us together, to end the rancor.
Be that Obama.
That guy isn't running. Give it up.
Althouse Memo to Small Investors on How to Make Money in Markets:
1) Pay Attention to P/E Ratios.
2) Diversify Portfolio.
3) Buy on Dollar Cost Average.
4) Buy Low, Sell High.
Then you'll make money.
36fsfiend said...
What has Obama proposed that has not been embraced by the Right in the past?
Czars.
Regulating CO2 as a pollutant.
Fast & Furious.
Raising taxes on "the rich"
There.
You lose.
I'm reminded of a quote from Leo McGarry of West Wing regarding alcoholism. I can't find the exact quote, buts its something close to:
The first time you come out as an alcoholic, everyone is supportive and loving and willing to do anything to help you.
But when you relapse, when you fall off the wagon, its all "Get away from me".
That pushback, that's what we're seeing today.
People have sympathy for battered wives. Less so when they keep returning to their abuser with rose-colored glasses on.
Again, you're an adult and can make your own decisions re Obama. But expecting us to respect that choice is a bit much.
Heh, Obama picked an admitted communist as his Energy Czar and his Communications Director said Mao was her favorite philosopher but Obama himself isn't a radical lefty. He just hangs around them.
Pretty weak sauce. Now, maybe if you stated that he wants to cut the defense budget in half, I might begin to agree with you.
Hardly weaksauce. You put forward a loaded question which was refuted with the first thing off the top of my head. There's more, to be sure. Your inclusion of the defense budget undercuts your original question.
THAT, my friend, is weaksauce. Add some basil and an administration with a clue. Simmer for four years.
As long as Obama projects the right "qualities" Althouse will vote for him again. What he's actually done, the devastation in the wake of his actual policies has no bearing whatsoever on her vote. You were right, Samuel Johnson, about women having no business preaching. You left out using their heads.
36fsfiend said...
Scott M said...
"Illegal Presence Waivers"
The proposed changes will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.
Looks like he is supporting families. Isn't family values a principle of the Right?
I can be ubber liberal with your money. I much prefer to support my family with my money than your family with my family's money. Hey isn't the ACA supposed to solve the problems of free riders, so lets solve the free rider issue by mandating everyone support their own family.
Let's suppose that I time-traveled back to 1935 and gave Hitler some advice:
"Don't start a war on two fronts. And don't be so overtly antisemitic that you drive all of the great Jewish theoretical physicists out of Germany and into the arms of your enemies where they can help develop the atom bomb, for your enemies. Be that pragmatic Hitler that I know you can be."
This would certainly be good advice; but would it be good of me to offer it?
Jay,
Czars – he’s not the first.
Regulating CO2 as a pollutant – read up about sulfur dioxide and President George H.W. Bush.
Fast & Furious - read about Bush’s program in 2007.
Raising taxes on "the rich" – read up on Reagan’s position regarding income tax disparity.
Can you please provide some examples of this lefty Obama I here so much about.
Because take it from me, a real lefty, Obama has been a great disappointment to us.
---------------
That pesky Constitution written by dead old white guys, this separation of powers thing is a bummer. It was so much easier if we were like the rest of the world and that feudal mentality.
And no, I'm not saying that Obama is another Hitler. I'm drawing clear lines by taking an extreme example.
Be that Obama.
NO. Be who you really are, Obama.
Note to Mitt Romney: If Obama doesn't want to be that Obama, you can be that guy.
NO. Be who you really are, Romney.
Why insist on pretense? Why the fascination with demanding candidates wear YOUR preferred mask? So you can say you are an independent, moderate and chock-full of cruel meutrality?
As Captcha says: "Please prove you're not a robot."
Scott M,
How does my inclusion of the defense budget undercut my original question?
He’s not a radical lefty. Moderate at best.
Heh, Obama picked an admitted communist as his Energy Czar and his Communications Director said Mao was her favorite philosopher but Obama himself isn't a radical lefty. He just hangs around them.
---------------
He's always had sympathy for disenfranchised marxists. I just wish someone would explain to me why marxists are disenfranchised?
If Obama is a radical, then the word has lost its meaning. Except for the health care plan, which was an attempt to change the fundamental nature of our misguided health care, everything he has done from supporting Wall Street, to continued surveillance of US citizens is only a continuation of G. W. Bush policy.
My advice for Obama is to read Dr.Haidt's book and understand how little folks use reason to make sense of the world. According the Haidt, our underlying moral order likes respect for authority and tradition, and if you can through in some fear all the better, the Republicans are great at doing this. The appeal to fairness and liberty , which liberals make, is limited and unless you can make folks feel the fear of losing something, you will not get elected. Where to focus that fear? Clearly the middle class is suffering under the two wars, the Reagan tax cuts, and the outsourcing of manufacturing and even R/D to other countries. This coupled with the rise of China,which cheapens the lives of the middle class by forcing them into lower wages to compete in making more flimsy cheap products, is fertile ground for Obama---both campaigns must run on fear the alternative, while offering a pragmatic approach to the list of real problems.
36fsfiend said...
Czars – he’s not the first.
Um, yes, yes he is.
As someone in private enterprise, it's hard for me to articulate what Obama could say to change my mind. When interviewing candidates for job openings, I try to cut through the applicant's hypothetical approaches to how they'd ideally like to do their job, and focus in on what they've actually done in the past. It's an tactic known as behavioral interviewing, and it's used to gather data so that you can try to predict how that applicant would fit into your job opening based on their past behavior. It's not perfect, but it is a useful tool.
I don't think Barry would do very well on the behavioral portions, which consist of questions like "Describe a time in the past when you didn't accomplish a goal that you committed to. Be specific and frank about your own role and your own actions." and "Describe a time when you had to work with a difficult coworker." I don't think his answers would predict a high level of executive performance.
What it boils down to is his performance over the next few months. He needs to mean what he says and say what he means. At the same time he needs to start compiling a record of actual accomplishment, the kind that are beneficial to all parties, not just Democrats. Absent that, he's just empty words.
36fsfiend said...
Regulating CO2 as a pollutant – read up about sulfur dioxide and President George H.W. Bush.
Um, sulfur dioxide isn't CO2.
You are ignorant and absurd.
Fast & Furious - read about Bush’s program in 2007.
It wasn't Fast & Furious.
You are ignorant and absurd.
Raising taxes on "the rich" – read up on Reagan’s position regarding income tax disparity.
Um, I don't have to "read up" on anything considering how much Reagan cut the top rate.
You are ignorant and absurd.
OK, I'm going to say this and Ann can beat me up all she wants.
She's hearing the same things from us because we've been developing these opinions over the last 4 years.
As I say, it may be good advice, but I think Ann doesn't want to face, IMHO, certain facts about the man's makeup. The real Obama came out after Inauguration and we've been seeing it every day since.
That and the fact this is how Axelrod got him where he is (I mean, the state and US Senate races) makes it a very tough sell that it would work (the Romster's going to come at him guns blazing over the economy, unemployment, and inflation and I have my doubts about a soft word turning away wrath in this case).
Canuck said...
I'd vote for Obama over Santorum in a heartbeat. ABOBS, appparently.
no way. I don't buy this. You can always vote third party.
This ain't Canuckistan. No coalitions here.
A vote for Bob Barr was a vote for GodZero last time and nothing's changed.
Freder Frederson said...
I see lefty Obama in nearly everything he does, and that is only increasing as the election draws near and people begin to question just what his policies have wrought
Can you please provide some examples of this lefty Obama I here so much about.
Because take it from me, a real lefty, Obama has been a great disappointment to us.
I have to sort of agree here.
A lot of what GodZero has done the past year is to shore up his base only because much of his base is so far out in left field. His problem is, every time he does it, he picks a fight with a group he can't afford to alienate (Catholics, coal-producing states, etc.).
Fen said...
Read edutcher too.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate the nod.
You're right, 36fs. He's a moderate who thinks it's unprecedented that the Supreme Court should determine that a law is unconstitutional; who thinks anything short of confiscatory tax rates and income redistribution is "social darwinism"; who thought that the ends (of taking away second amendment rights) justified the means (a few hundred dead Mexicans).
He's that sort of moderate. You know, the type that thinks that energy prices should necessarily skyrocket, and that "at some point you have enough money."
If that's moderate, please put me in the "extreme right" column.
How does my inclusion of the defense budget undercut my original question?
I'm trying to remember an instance, but cannot, of the GOP or the "right" embracing cutting the defense budget in half. Since they have not, that would undercut your original question. If they have, I'm not remembering the instance and would appreciate your expanding on it.
Raising taxes on "the rich" – read up on Reagan’s position regarding income tax disparity.
This is a perfect example of why silly, ignorant, dipshit leftists like you should be ridiculed and mocked at every turn.
You have no interest in discussing something in good faith.
Everything you believe is a lie or in service to a lie.
cubanbob said...
“I can be ubber liberal with your money. I much prefer to support my family with my money than your family with my family's money. Hey isn't the ACA supposed to solve the problems of free riders, so lets solve the free rider issue by mandating everyone support their own family.”
Well, if buying healthcare was simple and cheap as buying broccoli and insurance wasn’t required, we wouldn’t have that big of a problem of free riders, would we?
Again, the idea of an insurance mandate is not Obama's idea.
The nominee for the Republican party used it himself.
roesch/voltaire, why should anyone read what a right-wing hack Moby like you writes?
You admitted in these comment sections yesterday that you "proudly voted for Santorum."
So go peddle your intentionally weak faux-leftist propaganda somewhere else, you reich-wing Rethuglikkkan poseur.
Scott M said...
“I'm trying to remember an instance, but cannot, of the GOP or the "right" embracing cutting the defense budget in half. Since they have not, that would undercut your original question. If they have, I'm not remembering the instance and would appreciate your expanding on it.”
No, since Obama has not advocated cutting the defense budget in half, he is in line with the Right. Hence, my point he is not a radical lefty.
The appeals to liberty and fairness, which liberals make, is limited. . .
You see, this is why I like comment strings that go past 200; the true comedy gold comes out. Liberals may make that appeal, RV, but the left does not. What liberty has the left ever promoted other than the liberty to engage in every sort of sexual perversion without consequence? What fairness have they ever promoted that didn't have at its base the restriction of someone else's financial or social liberty?
Perhaps you should read The True Believer.
Pastafarian said...
Let's suppose that I time-traveled back to 1935 and gave Hitler some advice:
"Don't start a war on two fronts. And don't be so overtly antisemitic that you drive all of the great Jewish theoretical physicists out of Germany and into the arms of your enemies where they can help develop the atom bomb, for your enemies. Be that pragmatic Hitler that I know you can be."
This would certainly be good advice; but would it be good of me to offer it?
I wouldn't put this in here because of the requisite Godwin Alert, but this is off Neal Boortz' blog today and it rings true:
During World War II the United States Office of Strategic Services created a psychological profile of Hitler. We needed to know what made that despot tick. Included in that profile were the following primary rules that Hitler followed to gain and solidify his hold on power
Never allow the public to cool off
Never admit a fault or wrong
Never concede that there may be some good in your enemy
Never leave room for alternatives
Never accept blame
Concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong
People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
You hate to admit it, right? But you can see every one of those points in Barack Obama and the tactics he is employing to get the four more years he needs to complete his destruction of America as you know it.
36fsfiend said...
What has Obama proposed that has not been embraced by the Right in the past?
Using the HHS to force companies to mandate birth control coverage with no copays for employees.
There.
You lose.
Jay said...
"Everything you believe is a lie or in service to a lie."
Here's what President Reagan stated during his speech at the Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 6, 1985:
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?”
Speaking about lying, here's some info about czars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
Raising taxes on "the rich" – read up on Reagan’s position regarding income tax disparity.
Reagan never, ever, introduced a budget calling for higher income taxes.
You lose.
Here's what President Reagan stated during his speech at the Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 6, 1985:
And I think you should pretend that is like the exact same thing as calling them "the rich" and a "loophole" is a higher tax rate.
Really, you should.
Just like sulfur dioxide is Co2
Moron.
Jay said...
"Using the HHS to force companies to mandate birth control coverage with no copays for employees."
Read up on Romney's plan used in Massachusetts.
36fsfiend said...
Read up on Romney's plan used in Massachusetts.
Um, stupid:
A state government isn't the federal government.
Again, This is a perfect example of why silly, ignorant, dipshit leftists like you should be ridiculed and mocked at every turn.
You have no interest in discussing something in good faith.
Everything you believe is a lie or in service to a lie.
"All the comments getting this wrong bore the hell out of me.
Please raise your game. Show some glimmer of getting this.... or I will avert my eyes."
We do what we can with what we have to work with. Next time don't be so obtuse...raise your game, too.
No, since Obama has not advocated cutting the defense budget in half, he is in line with the Right. Hence, my point he is not a radical lefty.
Ah, then I misunderstood your point about the defense budget. Suffice to say that your deflection of the Illegal presence waiver doesn't change the fact that it wasn't "embraced" by the right.
Similarly, as Jay correctly pointed out, the EPA attacks on carbon dioxide, a gas that you're sitting their making right now simply by being alive, was not previously embraced by the right.
The Superman/Bizarro dichotomy is entertaining but silly. We do not live in a comic book. There is no duplicating ray. (As far as we know, bwahaha). There are not two Obamas. There's one guy and he's clearly a raging progressive statist, by and large ignorant of the ways of the wider world outside the academy and heavily weighted down by a boulder of race hatred on his shoulder. He has developed and affects a "moderate" pose which rarely if ever extends to the substantive matters of governing. I can see a traditional liberal falling in love with the idea of Obama the Moderate in 2008 but you cannot seriously still maintain that perception in 2012. Actions do, in fact, speak louder than "mere" words.
Does your vote depend on substance (heavens, he's not acting like the moderate I thought he was) or perception (heavens, he really should up his bullshit moderate facade game)? Do you really think there's a moderate in there or are you just disappointed in the political presentation?
If it's the latter, does this mean you look forward to seeing Bizarro Obama/radical lefty Obama back in business? If it's the former, WHY?
Jay,
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that Obama is following some of the same principles advocated by those on the right.
Scott M,
No deflection. I just don’t believe illegal presence waivers are enough to call Obama a radical lefty.
Regarding the EPA, which president established the EPA?
Czars – he’s not the first
George W. Bush had over 30 "Czars" in his Admin, which was three times as much as any other previous President. (FDR started the practice, and every President since then...with the exception of JFK...has also done so.)
Our current President seems to have just under 40 Czars advising him, a new record for sure...but he certainly wasn't the first to so.
"RC, Freder and Garage believe that an attempt to nationalize the health care industry is a moderate establishment position."
And yet, Obama did no such thing...unless you call implementing Mitt Romney's health care plan nationally, (a model that was supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation), one that keeps the for-profit health insurers in business, and delivers to them a captive audience of citizens who must buy their over-priced, under-serviced products "an attempt to nationalize the health care industry."
You have no idea what you even mean when you say "nationalizing the health care industry."
Regarding the EPA, which president established the EPA?
Oh, good lord, I hate this argument. Just because a conservative may have agitated for a piece of legislation in the past does not mean we are required to shackle ourselves to it now.
Otherwise, I await your defense of the Fugitive Slave Law.
I think we have a Jekyll and Hyde President. He is capable of speaking in soothing bi-partisan tones but then acting like a ruthless Socialist dictator. Or a few times when see the cards stacked against him he completely capitulates rather than arriving at a negotiated solution.
In short I don't think he likes the give and take of negotiation. We knew BClinton and he's no BClinton.
This is a very predictable comments thread, made boring by the failure to read what it says and doesn't say.
...
All the comments getting this wrong bore the hell out of me.
Please raise your game. Show some glimmer of getting this.... or I will avert my eyes.
In case it wasn't clear, she was saying all of you are dumb.
No deflection. I just don’t believe illegal presence waivers are enough to call Obama a radical lefty.
That wasn't your question. Your question was whether or not he proposed something not embraced by the right.
Who founded the EPA has no bearing on Obama's using it's apparatus to declare a human exhalation as poison.
Christopher in MA said...
"Oh, good lord, I hate this argument. Just because a conservative may have agitated for a piece of legislation in the past does not mean we are required to shackle ourselves to it now."
OK, here's some more info regarding Republican support for cap-and-trade:
http://grist.org/politics/2010-06-29-remember-when-republicans-liked-cap-and-trade/
In case it wasn't clear, she was saying all of you are dumb.
Was it clear over the weekend when she told you to fuck off, Andy?
"Do you know how many times I've heard these comments over the past 3 1/2 years?"
Political blogs in a nutshell aside lol, Althouse, don't take this thread personally. :D
First consider your flock now realizes mittens is a train wreck and it will be very hard for the flip/flopping, no core beliefs, RINO from MA, who has the same health care plan as Obama ... to defeat in incumbent president.
ie your conservative flock is getting a tad upset knowing their are no Reagan's on the horizon in the party of Lincoln.
No straddling the fence Reps are allowed at a conservative blog.
>
btw, it was quite amusing mittens mentioned straw men in his screed today as he has been on each side of every major political issue the past 20/30 years.
Hey, he's flexible, unlike Althouse's flock! :)
Scott M said...
“That wasn't your question. Your question was whether or not he proposed something not embraced by the right.”
My point is that Obama is not a radical lefty. Moderate, yes. Radical, no.
In short I don't think he likes the give and take of negotiation.
Same thing with our current Governor.
In fact, he dislikes the idea of "negotiating" so much that he made it illegal for workers to do so with him! It is either his way or the highway, with not even a chance to talk things out.
While I ain't a fan of either man, I find it amusing how some of the same folks who like that attitude from Walker say they despise it from Obama.
Was it clear over the weekend when she told you to fuck off, Andy?
I assumed that was part of the whole performance art of using biased language in a post about not using biased language.
In other news --
Did you all hear what that extremist, religious nut-job, theocrat Saintorum said today?
First of all, he said it at a prayer breakfast. So, what, Saintorum would be forcing Americans everywhere to pray at breakfast??
At this prayer event, he recounted Jesus saying, "In this world, you will have trouble." Saintorum then said that he's among those who sometimes question God's plan for him. But he says that's precisely when he recalls the "triumph" of the Easter story, and Jesus overcoming his doubts and fears before the crucifixion.
"God's plan" for Santorum! What a religious fanatic!
In fact, he dislikes the idea of "negotiating" so much that he made it illegal for workers to do so with him!
Lying doesn't do much to bolster your position.
"God's plan" for Santorum! What a religious fanatic!"
Any yet, mittens is having a hard time putting him away 'cause conservatives/evangelicals don't seem to like Romney. Go figure!
36 - what part of just because something was supported in the past doesn't mean it has to be supported now went over your head? Because, as I said, if you really want to hold that the EPA and cap and trade are inviolable because they once had GOP support, then I want you to admit that you have no problem bringing back the Fugitive Slave Act.
Or I'll make it even easier - dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Applicable to every administration, or deepest treason when applied to Democrats?
she's calling all of you dumb.
As compared to the Hat who thinks repeating the terms "frothy" and "joke candidate" make him the soulmate of Alexander Woolcott? Even a certified dolt like Alpha has more on the beam than you.
And again, the point of this post is: the best way for Obama to win....All the comments getting this wrong bore the hell out of me.
See, guys, Ann's point is that Obama will have a better chance of winning if he runs as a moderate rather than as a flaming communist.
For example, if he's at a campaign rally and everyone is singing "The Star Spangled Banner," he probably shouldn't break into "The Internationale," even if he's humming it in his heart.
Please show some respect for her amazingly brillinat insight into the heart of obviousness.
We — many of us — voted for you because you seemed to offer to bring us together, to end the rancor.
"If you can't spot the mark, it's you".
Fool Althouse once, shame on you.
Fool Althouse twice...
Lying doesn't do much to bolster your position.
Simply calling someone a liar doesn't do much to bolster yours.
But it does seem to be par for the course 'round these parts...
"... Read up on Romney's plan used in Massachusetts..."
Massachusetts isn't the Federal Government.
Note to Mitt Romney: If Obama doesn't want to be that Obama, you can be that guy.
Willard's defining strength is that he can be whatever we want him to be. He's extremely flexible.
Christopher in MA said...
“36 - what part of just because something was supported in the past doesn't mean it has to be supported now went over your head? Because, as I said, if you really want to hold that the EPA and cap and trade are inviolable because they once had GOP support, then I want you to admit that you have no problem bringing back the Fugitive Slave Act.
Or I'll make it even easier - dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Applicable to every administration, or deepest treason when applied to Democrats?”
Hey Christopher in MA,
Radical means to be extreme or drastic in nature. What has Obama done that has been so extreme or drastic?
"... I just don’t believe illegal presence waivers are enough to call Obama a radical lefty..."
I agree. I think his appointments of Van Jones and Anita Dunn, nationalizing GM for the benefit of big labor, disregarding Federal bankruptcy laws, killing a job creating oil pipeline for enviro wackos, redefining millionaires as anyone making $250k or more so marginal rates can be raised to 40% and admonishing the USSC because they might actually do their job makes him a radical lefty.
YMMV
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Massachusetts isn't the Federal Government.”
I guess you have to find some excuse to accept Romney, don’t you?
First consider your flock now realizes mittens is a train wreck and it will be very hard for the flip/flopping, no core beliefs, RINO from MA, who has the same health care plan as Obama ... to defeat in incumbent president.
Zero's the one who's flip/flopped, and has no core beliefs except destroy the country.
That's why he's running scared. Rasmussen's Approval Index is -18 today.
Any yet, mittens is having a hard time putting him away 'cause conservatives/evangelicals don't seem to like Romney. Go figure!
Ah, but that's how the Romster won so big last night.
Bathtub swabbie must have missed it (I know, the trolls have been in hiding the last few weeks; nothing Axelrod & Plouffe have tried has worked.).
PS I see the trolls have come out from under the woodwork, having gotten their instructions along with the media.
They must love being Zero's bitches.
".... or I will avert my eyes."
Ha, she's gonna boycott us.
We know you already heard it. Do you think this "Obama is a moderate" stuff is new. You should be thanking us for even viewing the drivel, let alone taking the time to comment on it for you.
You also have the luxury of assuming McCain would be worse. Obama did not turn out like you expected, but McCain would?
After all the other boneheads you've admitted voting for, you're a reliable source for this stuff?
36fsfiend said...
Jay,
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that Obama is following some of the same principles advocated by those on the right.
Good for him.
But we're still left with you pretending Obama hasn't tried to implement things no Republican ever has or would.
You silly hack.
36fsfiend said...
I guess you have to find some excuse to accept Romney, don’t you?
So anyway, you're going to admit that whatever Romney did in Mass is different because Obama did it at the federal level, right?
Or are you just incapable of that?
Hoosier Daddy said...
“I agree. I think his appointments of Van Jones and Anita Dunn, nationalizing GM for the benefit of big labor, disregarding Federal bankruptcy laws, killing a job creating oil pipeline for enviro wackos, redefining millionaires as anyone making $250k or more so marginal rates can be raised to 40% and admonishing the USSC because they might actually do their job makes him a radical lefty.”
Which president initiated the auto bailout?
The pipeline has not been killed.
He didn’t redefine millionaires as someone making over $250K.
Regarding admonishing the USSC, here’s some history for you:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BVhUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lo8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6771,3277418&dq=reagan+supreme-court&hl=en
Jay said...
"So anyway, you're going to admit that whatever Romney did in Mass is different because Obama did it at the federal level, right?
Or are you just incapable of that?"
No. My point is Obama is not a radical lefty. Just a moderate lefty.
", “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well."
That is not the defining issue of our time. It's the defining issue of the left. Freedom and its constant struggle for survival is the defining issue of our time, our parents' and their parents' time.
Economics is fickle, fleeting and beyond the control of men. When they try they fail miserably and catastrophically for all people.
There is absolutely nothing novel about a leftist calling economic security the defining issue. It's their only issue, always has been and it's a con incapable of supporting itself longer than about 70 years. USSR, Chicoms, Cuba, etc. Now it's hitting that wall in Europe and we're next.
I can't believe I'm reading this. Don't you understand that Moderate Obama doesn't exist? Moderate Obama is only a mask he puts on when he needs to con the people into thinking he is one of them, like in an election year. Lefty Obama is the real deal. Look at who he chooses to be his advisors and what he says when he thinks he is among friends. I read you every day, and have never commented before, but I am shocked at your naivete.
I'm independent, moderate, and pragmatic, and I voted for you in 2008 because I thought I saw those qualities in you.
You're left-leaning, gullible, and race-conscious, and you voted for him because he's a black fascist who used words like "fairness" a lot.
No. My point is Obama is not a radical lefty. Just a moderate lefty.
Given the spectrum you just outlined, that puts him three positions left of a moderate and only right of a radical lefty.
That makes him pretty far to the port side.
or I will avert my eyes
Redundant, since you've already screwed them shut lest you see Obama's record.
Scott M said...
“Given the spectrum you just outlined, that puts him three positions left of a moderate and only right of a radical lefty.
That makes him pretty far to the port side.”
What scale are you using?
As far as Obama’s support of labor, which president made this observation:
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."
In a city of Trotskyites the Marxist is considered the moderate.
What scale are you using?
Given "My point is Obama is not a radical lefty. Just a moderate lefty." the spectrum looks like this.
Radical lefty, moderate lefty, conservative lefty.
Liberal moderate, moderate, conservative moderate.
Liberal righty, moderate righty, radical righty.
Thus...your guy is still only one point from the furthest left.
36fsfiend said...
Scott M,
How does my inclusion of the defense budget undercut my original question?
He’s not a radical lefty. Moderate at best.
4/4/12 11:33 AM
National defense is a core requirement and a benefit to all. Your EBT card and welfare benefit you but does not benefit all. Lets cut you benefits in half and lets leave the military the funds needed to accomplish it's mission.
Awwww, the Profesor doesn't like criticism, so she lashes out at her commentors for not understanding her brilliance. No wonder she still flirts with voting for B. Hussein.
It's a wonder Reynolds bothers to throw you traffic.
Ann, I really enjoy reading your blog and have done so for the past 7 years or so. That being said, if you vote for this guy again after what we know of him now, you're basically so self-deluded that you're not worth reading to me anymore. I'm not threatening a boycott. I'm just saying what will happen should you identify as a rube once more.
36fsfiend said...
Jay,
Czars – he’s not the first.
Regulating CO2 as a pollutant – read up about sulfur dioxide and President George H.W. Bush.
Fast & Furious - read about Bush’s program in 2007.
Raising taxes on "the rich" – read up on Reagan’s position regarding income tax disparity.
4/4/12 11:30 AM
Lets assume that your argument is right, so you are saying then is then two wrongs make a right.
Further more your now agreeing that ChimpyMcHitler was right!
As for Reagan, God bless him! Obviously you have never paid income taxes at 70% on the margin! Man could we use a man like Reagan again!
Again, elections come down to choices and Reps are apparently ;) stuck w/RINO mittens.
Such is Althouse's conundrum as she might be smitten w/mittens as much as I thought. Although mittens does wear rather thin quite quickly.
as she might not be smitten ...
Ann, how can you observe all that Obama and the Democrat party in power have done in the past three years and still consider voting again for him. I am really concerned for our country where intelligent people can't see the dangers of spending out of control. We simply can't afford Obama.
cubanbob,
“National defense is a core requirement and a benefit to all. Your EBT card and welfare benefit you but does not benefit all. Lets cut you benefits in half and lets leave the military the funds needed to accomplish it's mission.”
Well, I personally believe waste needs to be reduces in both social benefits and defense.
For example, there is estimated to be $60 to $90 billion in fraud committed by Medicare providers each year. In my own experience while on active duty, you have to continually fight against potential fraud.
Scott M said...
"Thus...your guy is still only one point from the furthest left."
So, in other words, he's not a radical?
36fsfiend said...
cubanbob said...
“I can be ubber liberal with your money. I much prefer to support my family with my money than your family with my family's money. Hey isn't the ACA supposed to solve the problems of free riders, so lets solve the free rider issue by mandating everyone support their own family.”
Well, if buying healthcare was simple and cheap as buying broccoli and insurance wasn’t required, we wouldn’t have that big of a problem of free riders, would we?
Again, the idea of an insurance mandate is not Obama's idea.
The nominee for the Republican party used it himself.
4/4/12 11:42 AM
1-he was wrong but now see the errors of his ways.
2-states are separate sovereignties with different powers than the federal government. They have powers the federal government doesn't.
I'm sure this is too difficult for you to understand.
The initial premise bores the hell out of us because, as I mentioned earlier, the Obama of 2008 doesn't exist in 2012 and a campaign strategy to try to re-create that, while probably the best idea he has, is that is not based on how he governed. Therefore, most of us here refuse to accept the question. It's not our fault when the professor asks a bad test question.
Exactly.
I don't care what position Obama decides to play- left, right, center. He can lay on the floor running in circles shouting "woo woo woo woo" like Curly in the three stooges for all I care.
He has a record now, and will be judged on it by most people. And those who live based on govt. handouts will vote like they always vote. The only folks who will vote based on your advice are tenured professors and maybe some union folks who are, or think they are, immune to the effects of this economy. Don't be so shocked when people criticize those folks- they largely deserve it.
"Which president initiated the auto bailout?"
Oh you mean Obama isn't responsible for doubling down on Bush's mistake? Or telling the priority creditors to fuck off? That's your argument?
"The pipeline has not been killed."
Oh. Go tell that Harper.
"He didn’t redefine millionaires as someone making over $250K."
Actually he did. He wants millionaires to pay their fair share and his tax plan for them also includes those making $250k per year.
"Regarding admonishing the USSC, here’s some history for you:"
I prefer hyperlinks thanks.
So, in other words, he's not a radical?
I never said he was.
In my own experience while on active duty, you have to continually fight against potential fraud.
The federal government does not appear to be predisposed to following your advice. It doesn't matter who's running it. The system is very nearly broken and unable to police itself. This might be bearable if we weren't spending ourselves into oblivion and people could just get on with their lives. Unfortunately, instead of the heat being incrementally turned up, we're all going to be chucked into the microwave at some point.
That which cannot go on forever will not.
cubanbob said...
“Lets assume that your argument is right, so you are saying then is then two wrongs make a right. Further more your now agreeing that ChimpyMcHitler was right!
As for Reagan, God bless him! Obviously you have never paid income taxes at 70% on the margin! Man could we use a man like Reagan again!”
I’m simply stating that Obama is not a radical as demonstrated by his willingness to embrace positions once held or still held by those on the right.
As far as paying 70 percent on taxes, that was right before I entered the work force. And I wasn’t making that high of a salary to be affected in any case.
As far as raising taxes, Reagan did so 11 times after his initial big cuts.
Obama has supported tax cuts three times as well as other tax breaks such as for those businesses that hire veterans.
Not a real radical lefty in my opinion.
I prefer hyperlinks thanks.
Nerd.
"In a city of Trotskyites the Marxist is considered the moderate."
And in a rabble of rightwing extremists the feckless establishmentarian is considered a radical leftist.
Simply calling someone a liar doesn't do much to bolster yours.
Walker hasn't banned collective bargaining nor has he banned unions.
So, again, lying does little to bolster your argument.
The proffered campaign advice appears to presume the existence of Moderate Obama.
Which is off the charts Samantha Brick* delusional.
Barack Obama:Moderate::Samantha Brick:Pretty.
(It's all an illusion.)
*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html
As for actual campaign advice for Obama, shouldn't that be to the lefties in here? Did any of them actually come up with any good campaign advice or are they too busy planning to impeach the USSC?
Again, elections come down to choices and Reps are apparently ;) stuck w/RINO mittens.
And the Demos are stuck with Dictator Zero :O, who's alienating more groups of people every day.
That is, when he's not backing another losing cause.
Poor bathtub swabbie, FUD is all he's got. He can't say anything positive about GodZero.
Can he?
In case it wasn't clear, she was saying all of you are dumb.
Hmmm. How do I word this delicately?
If you are attempting to communicate to an audience, and the audience does not understand what you are trying to say, and you think that this is the audience's fault? You are probably wrong.
Though this principle is often rejected in academia, as are most of Orwell's rules for writing clearly.
Regulating CO2 as a pollutant – read up about sulfur dioxide and President George H.W. Bush.
The difference is pretty basic. SO2 will kill you, while CO2 won't, but is required for the cycle of life. W/O CO2, there would be no plant growth, and no corresponding release of O2, which we find just as essential as the plants do CO2.
Also, there was real science behind the dangers of SO2, as contrasted CO2, where the EPA (IMHO illegally) used the highly politicized, and minimally vetted IPCC findings, instead of doing their own research.
And, probably as importantly, the EPA failed completely to inquire as to whether humans would be better or worse off with higher CO2 concentrations. A bunch of horribles were predicted, with negligible scientific study or basis. And, they ignored that plants tend to thrive better in higher CO2 concentrations and at higher temperatures. Which is why mankind seems to suffer during cooler global temperatures (like the Little Ice Age), and thrive between (like during the Medieval Warming Period). Here is a hint - the Vikings didn't pull out of North America because it was too warm, or there was too much CO2 in the atmosphere. They did it because their settlements failed because we went into the Little Ice Age.
And, of course, the EPA ignored the reality that much, if not most, of the warming involved was a direct result of coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Fast & Furious - read about Bush’s program in 2007.
Here are some of the basic differences between F&F and the Bush era operation:
- coordination with the Mexican government
- serious attempt to track the weapons
- serious attempt to capture the weapons before being used for crime
- significantly fewer weapons involved under Bush than Obama
- no stonewalling of Congress under Bush. No invocation of the 5th Amdt. by participants, etc.
Other than that, they are almost identical.
Scott M said...
“I never said he was.”
Then we agree.
“The federal government does not appear to be predisposed to following your advice. It doesn't matter who's running it. The system is very nearly broken and unable to police itself. This might be bearable if we weren't spending ourselves into oblivion and people could just get on with their lives. Unfortunately, instead of the heat being incrementally turned up, we're all going to be chucked into the microwave at some point.”
I agree. And as I stated up thread cuts have to take place in both benefits and military spending. The budget proposed by Ryan doesn’t touch defense. In fact, they are reneging on the sequestration agreed to during the debt ceiling fight last summer.
Then we agree.
Once you admit Obama has proposed things not embraced by the right, as per your original premise, then we'll agree.
Obama is a great method actor. He can become the Good Obama and act that way better than Mitt Romney can be himself.
But the Thug Obama is a deadly snake in the grass whose forked tongue flickers in and out as he sizes up the vibrations of his prey for killing with fanged venom and eating whole.
Not that there is anything wrong with that... unless his prey is us.
The Rich People have 5% of the money Pit Viper Obama plans to kill and eat. The rest is held by middle class in retirement accounts to be scoffed up as costs of living skyrocket from energy strangulation and trillion dollar deficits that he is out arranging for us every time he slithers out of our White House.
"I'm giving him *campaign advice.* You're all saying the same thing and it's not responsive to my central point. Is it not good campaign advice?"
Great, good advice. He fooled you in '08, so obviously the advice worked.
Here is what an introspective campaign advice might look like:
"Obama man, I'm your girl. I'm moderate, and your a lefty, but if you pretend enough I'll believe you. All you gotta do is tell me what I want you to say now, so I, and other Obama Girls will vote you back in, and then you can go about being your true lefty self."
Also great advice, but I think he already figured it out, Ann.
It wasn't Fast & Furious.
You are ignorant and absurd.
Well, Jay, in his defense, Holder said they that Wide Receiver and F & F were totally different.
When a complete liar and moron makes a claim like that, it's easy to discount it. :)
A vote for Bob Barr was a vote for GodZero last time and nothing's changed.
I regret my Barr vote somewhat --- but, in the end, people need to SEE what Democratic rule actually gets us. See what happens when Dems totally run the show and then decide to shut down one half of Congress so the disasters of the first two years cannot be fixed.
You're right, 36fs. He's a moderate who thinks it's unprecedented that the Supreme Court should determine that a law is unconstitutional; who thinks anything short of confiscatory tax rates and income redistribution is "social darwinism"; who thought that the ends (of taking away second amendment rights) justified the means (a few hundred dead Mexicans).
Gotta correct you. You spell moron "M-O-R-O-N", not "M-O-D-E-R-A-T-E". :)
Any yet, mittens is having a hard time putting him away 'cause conservatives/evangelicals don't seem to like Romney. Go figure!
We could also mention that Obama wasn't exactly blowing Hillary out of the water when he became the de facto choice well before the primaries were over.
As far as raising taxes, Reagan did so 11 times after his initial big cuts.
Reagan did so?
I remember him agreeing to a large tax cut in exchange for larger spending cuts.
I remember him being livid that the Dems reneged on that deal.
...as they did to Bush Sr as well.
...and the Dems seem baffled that Republicans didn't trust them to cut $10 of spending for every $1 of tax hikes last year.
...because, apparently, they think conservatives are fellow members of their base or something.
My comment was deleted, but I will write it again. Ann- if you vote for this guy again, despite how brilliant a writer you are, I will not read this blog anymore. Why? Not out of a tantrum, but because you are so obviously a rube and self-deluded that your writing would not be worth reading. I've read this blog for well over seven years to date.
"Please raise your game. Show some glimmer of getting this.... or I will avert my eyes."
I think you are wrong, Ann. They are giving you an answer. The question is, should he lie to get reelected? Th answer to that is obviously yes, as a campaign strategy. It will probably work. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Bruce Hayden,
Look up hypercapnia. Anything in enough quantity can kill you. The comparison of SO2 and CO2 is about the effects on the environment.
The atmosphere is a closed system. The billions of tons of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere each year has to go someplace. What do you think happens to all that pollution?
My point about Fast & Furious program was that Obama wasn’t the first. As far as the problems with it, could that possibly have something to do about the ATF not being properly manned? Who is holding up the appointment of the director for the ATF?
Scott M said...
"Once you admit Obama has proposed things not embraced by the right, as per your original premise, then we'll agree."
Again, I don't believe he has proposed anything that makes him radical. He's a Democratic president attempting to implement moderate democratic programs. And all the major ones were programs he articulated during the 2008 campaign.
Walker hasn't banned collective bargaining nor has he banned unions.
I never said he banned unions. Implying that I did say so does little to bolster your argument.
He has made it illegal for workers to collectivily bargain with the State/County/City on everything except very limited wage increases/decreases.
To quibble over details like Walker didn't do it all by himself, so you're a liar to say he did or whatever claim you're trying to make does little to bolster your argument.
His supportersare rallying behind the "no collective bargaining" policy, so frankly I don't understand why you are playing these games.
When there are more than 200 comments, you have to scroll down to the bottom of the post page and click "newest" to see them.
No such link. So I'll post a meaningless comment to bring up the last comment page.
Damikesc,
Read up on GW Bush’s comments that he made on October 6, 2008, deriding the concept of a 'living Constitution' gives unelected judges (i.e. the Supreme Court) wide latitude in creating new laws and policies without accountability to the people.
As far as raising taxes, Reagan did so 11 times, you can read up on those instances very easily if you care to.
Bush Senior was livid about raising taxes?
"but I want to urge you to pack up Radical Lefty Obama and stow him away with the rest of your Harvard Law School memorabilia."
You mean the "memorabilia" we as citizens have never been able to see? Maybe if someone in the press had actually done any work on vetting this miserable SOB before the last election we wouldn't be where we are today.
Why would you want someone to "hide" who they really are? Is that what you would want your beloved Meade to do? I'm guessing not. So, let someone who can truly ruin our country lie to you and that's ok because you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to vote for him.
One word for this post: PATHETIC!
Advice to Obama will likely go unheeded, but it might not be totally wasted. The Bible tells the story of Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee who zealously persecuted Christians; one night, traveling on a road to Damascus, he is accosted by the Holy Spirit, converts to Christianity, and becomes the Apostle Paul.
Obama could have a 'road to Damascus' moment. But it needs to be a deep, heartfelt conversion; not one adorned cheaply for the benefit of electioneering.
That's the spirit with which I offer my advice to Obama.
36fsfiend said...
"The proposed changes will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.
Looks like he is supporting families. Isn't family values a principle of the Right?"
Yea.. LEGAL ONES, not illegal ones that sneek across the border with God knows what intent.
I had a long comment written regarding the "likability" of Obama. Then I realized that it was an exercise in futility. I'll just say that I cannot fathom what is likable about the man. At this point, I don't even want to know or care. So not only is my questioning Obama's likability futile, but my comment is now likely to be merely annoying.
Darcy you could never be annoying.
;-)
Once you admit Obama has proposed things not embraced by the right, as per your original premise, then we'll agree."
Again, I don't believe he has proposed anything that makes him radical. He's a Democratic president attempting to implement moderate democratic programs. And all the major ones were programs he articulated during the 2008 campaign.
-----
The King now owns the paper on my home, I consider that radical.
Not everything radical was proposed. Some of it was implemented.
Ann,
As a fellow midwesterner, I've enjoyed your blog. But, this post is one of the most stupid things I've ever read. There has never been a "moderate" Obama. Simply amazing to me that you ignore the facts. You seem more analytical than that.
"No such link. So I'll post a meaningless comment to bring up the last comment page."
Yeah, that bug has been there for months. I've found that if you click on the post's title, you do get the "newest" link, so that you can go beyond 200 without having to comment.
He has made it illegal for workers to collectivily bargain with the State/County/City on everything except very limited wage increases/decreases.
Still factually incorrect. He removed the right to bargain over wages. Other issues, such as workplace safety, are still allowed.
Either you're uninformed or lying.
"There has never been a "moderate" Obama."
I think he did a passable job of portraying himself as a moderate in the 2008 election. Those who wanted to believe could believe.
Althouse said "I'm giving him *campaign advice.* You're all saying the same thing and it's not responsive to my central point. Is it not good campaign advice?"
It's only good campaign advice if you want him to con the American people again. Why you would even think about giving him good campaign advice is beyond me. Do you want to be screwed for another 4 years?
Althouse, I think your campaign advice is probably correct. He was elected because lots of people saw a unifying, practical moderate. His popularity has tanked because he has governed more like the radical that he likely is. His problem, even if he heeds your advice, will be that he is no longer the blank slate upon which others can project their own hopes and dreams. He is now, for many of the moderates who voted for him, an actual president, rather than an ideal. Can his campaign effectively re-establish that projection screen candidate? Can Romney and the Republicans effectively shred the screen and reveal the lefty Obama? And even if they can, can they also create their own likeable, pragmatic moderate candidate as Obama's campaign did in 2008?
Your point in the comments that you chose between Obama and McCain is a very good one. We often seem to face a lesser-of-two-evils choice in elections. Reminds me of a bumper sticker in Louisiana years ago when Edwin Edwards (a corrupt and later convicted former governer making a comeback) was running against David Dukes (we all know about him, don't we?): "Vote for the crook"
McCain's flaws are not Romney's flaws, and Obama is, as I said above, not the same blank slate that he was in 2008. It'll be interesting to see if Romney can tap into that pragmatic moderate vibe that Obama had going vs. McCain.
As far as the problems with it, could that possibly have something to do about the ATF not being properly manned?
Actually, no. Not even letting Mexico know about it is not a failing of the ATF. Nor is insisting that gun dealers violate laws to do it.
The atmosphere is a closed system. The billions of tons of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere each year has to go someplace. What do you think happens to all that pollution?
My, you'd think volcanic eruptions would lead to PERMANENT changes in the atmosphere.
Yet they don't.
Why?
Bush Senior was livid about raising taxes?
I said Reagan was.
And, actually, yes, Bush Sr was --- especially since Democrats used it against him in 1992.
Read up on GW Bush’s comments that he made on October 6, 2008, deriding the concept of a 'living Constitution' gives unelected judges (i.e. the Supreme Court) wide latitude in creating new laws and policies without accountability to the people.
Yes, INVENTING NEW RIGHTS should be a major concern.
Saying an asinine bill is illegal is not identical. It's an analogy so retarded you'd be an idiot to even propose it.
Paul said...
“Yea.. LEGAL ONES, not illegal ones that sneek across the border with God knows what intent.”
Paul,
The new measure would apply only to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. The DHS will only grant waivers to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that’s a U.S. citizen.
Wasn’t there another president who granted amnesty for illegal aliens? He signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided here continuously.
This is really stupid. If Obama is moderate it's because he is conservative where moneyed financial interests have bought him and liberal else (when he seeks to pander to screwed-up people in a way that rich people are indifferent about or when established moneyed interests want federal subsidies). You can't be a liberal or a conservative and be totally corrupt, because sometimes it is more corrupt to do the conservative thing, and sometimes it is more corrupt to do the liberal thing; by being moderate, Obama can basically choose total corruption.
"The atmosphere is a closed system."
Penetrating analysis.
Is it not good campaign advice?
It's excellent campaign advice, if you (a) seriously think he's going to take heed, and (b) don't mind spending another four years being every bit as perplexed and heartbroken as you've been sine 2008.
One lawyer votes for another lawyer. Why pretend the thought process involved anything more?
@Hoosier Daddy:
Kind. :)
"annoying"
If political blogs aren't annoying, what's the point! :D
solo estoy diciendo
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! ~ Truman
ie Althouse and her conservative flock will kiss and make up in the next couple days ... or a reasonable facsimile thereof. :)
Regarding how he presented himself in 08, people were projecting moderation onto him way more than he was exhibiting it. I didn't even think about voting for him because everything I read, saw, and heard about him screamed Unrepentant Marxist to me. He existed in a progressive vacuum and had never been disabused of the feckless ideology of his youth.
damikesc said...
“Actually, no. Not even letting Mexico know about it is not a failing of the ATF. Nor is insisting that gun dealers violate laws to do it.
Not to get to deep into the weeds, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms hasn’t had a director since 2006 because the National Rifle Association has pressured senators to hold up every single nomination. If an agency isn’t properly manned or led then you’re going to have breakdowns in the operational effectiveness of the organization.
“My, you'd think volcanic eruptions would lead to PERMANENT changes in the atmosphere.”
They do have an impact on the atmosphere. Read up about the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and its effects on the atmosphere. Also, major volcanic eruptions are temporary in nature as opposed to our polluting activities which are continuous and increasing each year.
“Saying an asinine bill is illegal is not identical. It's an analogy so retarded you'd be an idiot to even propose it.”
Bush was all about judge-bashing, except for that one decision you might remember in late November 2000.
Original Mike said...
"The atmosphere is a closed system."
Penetrating analysis."
Well, it seems some can't grasp that concept.
Do you have small children?
Yeah I remember when Reagan granted that amnesty. It was a package real for stronger enforcement of the border. Naturally the liberals cheered the amnesty and said screw that enforcement crap.
Reagan learned that there is no such thing as negotiating in good faith with Democrats. Found that out on taxes too.
Wasn’t there another president who granted amnesty for illegal aliens? He signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided here continuously.
You seem to suffer from the misunderstanding that Reagen=infallible or Reagan=all-things-good-don't-dare-question-it. Get a grip.
"The atmosphere is a closed system."
No climate guru, I, but I'm almost positive this is incorrect. I can think of one really big thing roughly one AU away that adds plenty from outside.
B Todd Jones is Acting Director of the ATF and has been since Obama took over.
That excuse is pretty damn weak to lay on the Fast and Furious debacle.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"Yeah I remember when Reagan granted that amnesty. It was a package real for stronger enforcement of the border. Naturally the liberals cheered the amnesty and said screw that enforcement crap.
Reagan learned that there is no such thing as negotiating in good faith with Democrats. Found that out on taxes too."
So, since Reagan went along with the liberals does that make him a radical lefty?
Again, in my opinion Obama is a moderate lefty, not a radical.
Scott M said...
“You seem to suffer from the misunderstanding that Reagen=infallible or Reagan=all-things-good-don't-dare-question-it. Get a grip.”
No. Simply that Obama is not implementing radical or extreme policies.
So, since Reagan went along with the liberals does that make him a radical lefty?
No, but you citing him knowing full well the double-dealing that ended up happening (ie, no enforcement) is disingenuous. And this all goes back to your original assertion; that since Obama hasn't proposed anything the right didn't embrace, he can't be a radical. You've been shown more than one instance where that's simply not true. He HAS proposed thing the right hasn't embraced. You set the playing field with your original assertion.
Scott M said...
"No climate guru, I, but I'm almost positive this is incorrect. I can think of one really big thing roughly one AU away that adds plenty from outside."
Does the pollution escape into outer space?
When it comes to leftism, I don't make much distinction between moderate and radical. To me that's like saying I'd prefer Khruschev over Stalin.
Obama's associations tell me all I need to know about him. You're judged by the company you keep.
When Althouse wrote yesterday that she was skipping to the polls and pondering who she would vote for, I figured she blew a gasket in her head or really is a dipshit hippie chick at heart.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"B Todd Jones is Acting Director of the ATF and has been since Obama took over.
That excuse is pretty damn weak to lay on the Fast and Furious debacle."
There hasn't been a director since 2006. When did the breakdowns in organizational effectiveness actually begin to occur? Difficult to tell without a thorough investigation.
Do you think having a fully vetted director of the ATF is important?
"The atmosphere is a closed system. The billions of tons of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere each year has to go someplace. What do you think happens to all that pollution?"
This demonstrates a lack of understanding. The atmosphere is not a closed system things go into it and things come out of it. If not the planet would have never recovered after the K-T event 65 million years ago, not to mention the numerous other major meteor and volcanic events that plowed huge amounts of material into the atmosphere.
The land and the oceans absorb virtually everything thrown into the atmosphere eventually. The only problem is relative rates of in and out, and we currently have a very poor understanding of how they work. But, history shows for certain that the atmosphere does not hold "pollutants very well, and can handle a lot more than what we put into it.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Obama's associations tell me all I need to know about him. You're judged by the company you keep.”
Fair enough. I just don’t believe is a radical lefty based on the policies he has implemented so far. He’s not a communist or socialist.
Does the pollution escape into outer space?
Does pollution = atmosphere, or you being less than concise again?
You are aware that there is a shitload of man-made pollution in orbit, aren't you? That material came from inside the atmosphere, I'm pretty sure. I've seen videos of it. Hell, I've got relatives that watched it happen.
The new measure would apply only to illegal aliens
...and thus ends the actually relevant part of your answer. Thanks.
Not to get to deep into the weeds, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms hasn’t had a director since 2006 because the National Rifle Association has pressured senators to hold up every single nomination. If an agency isn’t properly manned or led then you’re going to have breakdowns in the operational effectiveness of the organization.
*sigh*
Yet again, WE. DID. NOT. LET. MEXICO. KNOW. WE. WERE. DOING. THIS.
MULTIPLE. GUN. DEALERS. DEMANDED. SOMETHING. IN. WRITING. SAYING. THEY. WERE. BEING. TOLD. TO. MAKE. THE. SALES. BECAUSE. THEY. BROKE. THE. LAW.
Can I simplify it further for you?
They do have an impact on the atmosphere. Read up about the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and its effects on the atmosphere.
To try and tie this into anything relevant, can you cite what damage TODAY is caused by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius that buried Pompeii?
If those pollutants have nowhere to go (source: you), then they'd still be causing damage.
No, I have no desire to play teacher for you. Since you buy into this climate change nonsense, you should learn more about what you believe.
So, since Reagan went along with the liberals does that make him a radical lefty?
Again, in my opinion Obama is a moderate lefty, not a radical.
*chuckle*
So, uh, what did the Dems shaft Obama over?
I ask because he certainly has never mentioned anything to date.
Does pollution = atmosphere, or you being less than concise again?
You are aware that there is a shitload of man-made pollution in orbit, aren't you? That material came from inside the atmosphere, I'm pretty sure. I've seen videos of it. Hell, I've got relatives that watched it happen.
Heck, blow his MIND and mention that rain isn't only H2O....
Heck, for laughs --- ask him what caused acid rain. You know, since pollution cannot leave the atmosphere and all.
The idea that a fart I had last year might still be swirling in the atmosphere now is kinda cute.
bagoh20,
You are correct regarding my comment about the atmosphere being a closed system since it does indeed interact with the land and seas. A more appropriate term would have been biosphere.
As far as the problem about relative rates of in and out, I agree we have a limited understanding of how they work. So why not err on the side of caution?
"You seem to suffer from the misunderstanding that Reagen=infallible or Reagan=all-things-good-don't-dare-question-it. Get a grip."
The left have real hard time understanding the non-left. They can't imagine not having a vaunted leader to worship uncritically. They have trouble with independent thinking and disagreeing with their figure heads.
They think if you vote for a guy, you have to support everything they do. That's what so painful about this Obama character for them.
" sublimely likeable"? Tell it to the Boston Police, the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona, Tea Partiers and on and on. The perpetual sneer (the one that no doubt followed the Dalai Lama down the trash alley) is anything but "likeable".
Scott M said...
“You are aware that there is a shitload of man-made pollution in orbit, aren't you? That material came from inside the atmosphere, I'm pretty sure. I've seen videos of it. Hell, I've got relatives that watched it happen.”
I’m aware of space debris in orbit. What other pollution are you referring to that exists outside of the atmosphere and if it exists outside of the atmosphere how does it affect the atmosphere?
I’m aware of space debris in orbit.
Just trying to cover all the bases as you tend to jump around a lot.
damikesc said...
“The new measure would apply only to illegal aliens
...and thus ends the actually relevant part of your answer. Thanks.”
No. Granting amnesty to illegals is not a new or radical concept.
“Yet again, WE. DID. NOT. LET. MEXICO. KNOW. WE. WERE. DOING. THIS.
Who, i.e., what specific agency, did not notify Mexico? Why was there a breakdown?
“To try and tie this into anything relevant, can you cite what damage TODAY is caused by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius that buried Pompeii?”
Again, you are comparing a temporary event in nature with continuous and increasing man made activity. If volcanic activity can affect the atmosphere, why not man made activity?
“So, uh, what did the Dems shaft Obama over?”
Support for closing Gitmo. He doesn’t have 100 percent democratic support for his contraception insurance mandate to name a couple.
The left have real hard time understanding the non-left. They can't imagine not having a vaunted leader to worship uncritically. They have trouble with independent thinking and disagreeing with their figure heads.
Studies verify that, to boot.
It's amazing how EVERY Democratic candidate is just friggin' AMAZING! ROCK STARS!!
Can't look at the bad side at all.
JFK? Awesome. SURE, he whored around and took a ton of drugs. Still...CAMELOT!!
LBJ? Wonderful guy. Sure, he was as corrupt as corrupt coule be and decimated the black family...but he cared!
Carter? Totally honest. A complete schmuck and anti-Semite --- but he's honest about it.
Clinton? HOLY COW, HE'S AMAZING. Sure, he's a "Republican-lite" and seemed genetically incapable of telling the truth --- but wow, he is the greatest.
Al Gore? Have you met a man smarter in your life without just exploding? He's so smart. Sure, his grades indicate he's a dullard --- but grades don't mean much.
Kerry? A VIETNAM VET! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT! And he's a genius. Grades don't prove anything.
Obama? Jesus would bow to Obama if he were alive now. He's done nothing wrong except not imprisoning Republicans.
Conservatives don't buy into that type of hero worship.
bagoh20 said...
“The left have real hard time understanding the non-left. They can't imagine not having a vaunted leader to worship uncritically. They have trouble with independent thinking and disagreeing with their figure heads.”
They think if you vote for a guy, you have to support everything they do. That's what so painful about this Obama character for them.”
You should take a look at some lefty blogs if you believe they don’t criticize Obama.
No. Granting amnesty to illegals is not a new or radical concept.
Granting it with no plans to improve enforcement at all --- yeah, kinda is.
Who, i.e., what specific agency, did not notify Mexico? Why was there a breakdown?
NO Department notified them. Not State. Not DoJ. Sure, both are run by incompetent boobs, but still. Bush managed to pull that off and lord knows he wasn't a rocket scientist.
Again, you are comparing a temporary event in nature with continuous and increasing man made activity.
You're aware that there is a significant difference in volume of pollutants in an eruption vs normal human behavior? As in an eruption is larger than everything man has done in our history combined.
So, what happened to that pollution?
Or the pollution of ALL of the other eruptions since then?
Where IS it?
Support for closing Gitmo.
Obama could close it unilaterally. So, let's try again.
He doesn’t have 100 percent democratic support for his contraception insurance mandate to name a couple.
...yet, it's being done.
So, again, how have the Dems shafted him. You've not produced a single actual example.
How sad that despite all your experience with radical lefties, you do not understand their nature.
How sad that you claim to recognize radical lefty behavior yet think a radical leftist at his age will change.
How sad that, despite his record in office, he only has to woo your vote by telling you what you want to hear.
So this is all it takes to sway the so-called "moderate, independent, pragmatic" voter? No, this is what appeals to people who don't think.
You should take a look at some lefty blogs if you believe they don’t criticize Obama.
Bush got FAR more heat from the Right.
Wonder why Bush's approval got so low?
Because conservatives turned on him.
Progressives wouldn't turn on Obama if he raped their newborn daughters in front of them.
I do not personally ascribe to the view that Mr Obama has some kind of ideological agenda, other than a desire to gain and hold on to power.
He is, IMO, a modern day Huey Long. I do have to give him credit for fooling the rubes in 2008. He's a good con man. And he may even win a second term. But there is simply no there there. Fortunately, the most we have to put up with this character is four more years, and the republic is strong enough to survive his vapidity.
Scott M said...
"I’m aware of space debris in orbit.
Just trying to cover all the bases as you tend to jump around a lot."
Just following the crowd.
So, how does space debris affect global warming since you brought it in that context?
I am pragmatic and independent and moderate also and I do not see to much of the Lefty Obama. Seems to me like he has bent over backwards to be accomadating to the Right. To much so. Who got us in this mess anyway? Remember 2008? Are we better off now? Yes. Is the HC law flawed? Yes. Will it get "fixed" lets hope so. I applaud the Republicans for rejecting Crazy and giving Mitt some wins but the Loony toons on the Right have more power and energy then the looney toons on the left (who really cares about them)and he needs to distance himself from them. Damn the base. Obama has to play to his partisan crowd also but he has not done anything he did not talk about on his campaign trail in 2008. Healthcare was talked about and we all knew it would be some form of RomneyCare and it is. The mandate should go but we need to fine a better way then what we had in 2008. No reason to perpetuate the myth of the Marxist Obama.
damn--Subscribe not ascribe
So, how does space debris affect global warming since you brought it in that context?
It was obvious snark, but since you brought it up, how does the "closed-system" atmosphere deal with all that externally-produced heat the sun provides? No effect?
Point being that it's not a closed system.
"
As far as the problem about relative rates of in and out, I agree we have a limited understanding of how they work. So why not err on the side of caution?"
I'd prefer not to err at all. The fact that you state it that way shows that you do understand that it is just a guess, and possibly wrong. But it is not harmless. To do what has been widely suggested would cost many human lives, and great economic destruction, and is almost certainly doomed to failure since the biggest polluters current and future (China and India) will never agree and if they did never comply. It's just foolish, and mostly err by throwing caution to the wind.
What we should do is continue to study the climate, continue to develop cleaner energy and plan to adapt to global warming which will definitely occur with or without us as it has always done, but we have no way of knowing when yet.
That is what erring on the side of caution looks like when you step back from the propaganda.
Yes Althouse,it is GREAT advice to Obama.
Those on the left and left of center will vote for him of course, but those like you, who are centrists and are somewhat right of center need him to reassure you that he is not the socialist most of your commenters believe him to be.
I'm glad that you are an independent thinker, that's what always brings me back to your blog, and your moments of brilliance.
Too bad most of your commenters don't recognize it. I hope Meade isn't mad at ya.
"Progressives wouldn't turn on Obama if he raped their newborn daughters in front of them."
No wonder they want that free birth control.
I am pragmatic and independent and moderate also
Amazing how few people recognize themselves as anything but pragmatic, independent, or moderate.
and I do not see to much of the Lefty Obama. Seems to me like he has bent over backwards to be accomadating to the Right.
Yes. Ignoring every amendment or idea. Refusing to do anything about the debt. Spending most of his time attacking Americans. Yes, that is accomodation for you.
To much so. Who got us in this mess anyway? Remember 2008?
Yes. Two years of a Democratic Congress killed the economy and exploded the deficit.
*shudder*
Are we better off now? Yes.
No. Fewer people are working now than then. Stabilizing the situation FAR BELOW where it was is not improving things. The Titanic's "floating" situation eventually stabilized. It didn't, however, improve.
Is the HC law flawed? Yes. Will it get "fixed" lets hope so. I applaud the Republicans for rejecting Crazy and giving Mitt some wins but the Loony toons on the Right have more power and energy then the looney toons on the left (who really cares about them)
The former Speaker of the House is a loony toon on the Left. The CBC is a collection of unemployable morons.
You're arguing that "nobody" cares about them? Honestly?
and he needs to distance himself from them. Damn the base.
He ISN'T doing so, in case you've missed it.
Obama has to play to his partisan crowd also but he has not done anything he did not talk about on his campaign trail in 2008.
Remember when he claimed he'd stop the runaway deficits? Or that Bush was so bad when gas hit $3 a gallon?
Good times.
Healthcare was talked about and we all knew it would be some form of RomneyCare and it is. The mandate should go but we need to fine a better way then what we had in 2008.
We could always allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Wouldn't even cost a dime to allow that.
No reason to perpetuate the myth of the Marxist Obama.
He's not a Marxist.
He's just a dullard whose never been challenged and coasted his whole life on the myth that he's brilliant and special.
Incredibly boring campaign advice: hide your radical side, pretend to be what you clearly are not. Every Pol in history hides what will turn off the majority, if such exists. Similar advice for poker players: refrain from whooping out loud when you spot pocket aces in your hand.
As far as the problem about relative rates of in and out, I agree we have a limited understanding of how they work. So why not err on the side of caution?
Why not subject developing countries to perpetual poverty while destroying our economies in the process over a theory with virtually no actual scientific legitimacy?
Gee, no reason.
I think we should cut spending and then consider raising taxes in the future. Why not? It's a more cautious approach to our debt problem.
damikesc said...
“Granting it with no plans to improve enforcement at all --- yeah, kinda is.”
Who stated there are no plans to improve enforcement?
“NO Department notified them. Not State. Not DoJ. Sure, both are run by incompetent boobs, but still. Bush managed to pull that off and lord knows he wasn't a rocket scientist.”
Again, which specific department is required to so?
“You're aware that there is a significant difference in volume of pollutants in an eruption vs normal human behavior? As in an eruption is larger than everything man has done in our history combined.
You can read the studies comparing the volume of pollution from volcanic activity to the amount of pollution that has been introduced into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
“Obama could close it unilaterally. So, let's try again.”
Negative. Here’s some background for you:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/07/2578082/why-obama-hasnt-closed-guantanamo.html
“yet, it's being done.”
There is still proposed legislation to block the rule being discussed and some democrats support that legislation.
There were also democrats who voted to defeat legislation last week to end oil industry subsidies which Obama supports.
"Seems to me like he has bent over backwards to be accomadating to the Right. To much so."
How so?
"Who got us in this mess anyway?"
Which mess? Go ahead and say "Bush" so those of us that know better will know whether or not to take you seriously.
"Are we better off now? Yes."
Speak for yourself. I, and millions of others are clearly not. I'm going to lean toward not taking you seriously.
"Loony toons on the Right have more power and energy then the looney toons on the left (who really cares about them)and he needs to distance himself from them."
Factually incorrect on every level.
"No reason to perpetuate the myth of the Marxist Obama."
You do know that he wrote "Dreams of My Father" right? It's obvious you haven't read it.
I'm glad that you are an independent thinker, that's what always brings me back to your blog, and your moments of brilliance.
Professor, the resident paint-eater agrees with you. Is that not proof enough that your attempt to argue that Obama is "moderate" is ridiculous?
It's the cadence of his voice, right? Some people cannot resist the Siren's song.
Scott M said...
"It was obvious snark, but since you brought it up, how does the "closed-system" atmosphere deal with all that externally-produced heat the sun provides? No effect?
Point being that it's not a closed system."
You are attempting to compare solar energy radiating back into space to particles of pollution trapped in the atmosphere. Non sequitur.
Sorry, I don't get the point. If all you want to know is if this is good campaign advice? Ok. Sure, since he isn't running in a primary, he might as well start focusing on the general election. As he is sure to get the lefty base, he might as well start working on moderates. Notice, this advice would work for any lefty, not just for Obama. Change the political parties, and it would for Romney. After all, Romney pretty much has won his electorate, so he'd do better to start focusing on the general election.
If all you want is a pat on the back for noting the obvious, then your post is boring. If you want to attack your readership that takes the time to add to your blog; good luck with that campaign. If you wanted us to understand what it is that swayed voters in 2008; thanks, but we figured that out in 2008, see my first If.
he is not the socialist most of your commenters believe him to be
You're confused as to the meaning of the word "belief". Nevermind his appointments to the SCOTUS and the executive branch. Nevermind his overheated rhetoric and demagoguery. Nevermind his policy proscriptions.
The man himself has written about it.
Ignorance is not independent thinking.
Who stated there are no plans to improve enforcement?
Did they MENTION any plans to improve enforcement?
No?
Haven't they, in fact, spent years suing states for doing THEIR job in relation to immigration?
Again, which specific department is required to so?
DoJ with State as a backup. Funny, Bush figured out how to do it.
You can read the studies comparing the volume of pollution from volcanic activity to the amount of pollution that has been introduced into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
I have. Volcanic activity DWARFS it.
Negative. Here’s some background for you:
Might want to re-read the article. Only thing forbidden was housing them in the US.
He had other options.
He chose to not use them.
There is still proposed legislation to block the rule being discussed and some democrats support that legislation.
The HHS Secretary has major control over it and the Senate won't do anything to stop it.
Try and stay somewhere in the realm of reality.
There were also democrats who voted to defeat legislation last week to end oil industry subsidies which Obama supports.
Heck, why not cite how none of them voted for his budgets?
Blue paint. Better than the glue that some sniff, Dami, get your head out of that bag and recognize the brilliance of Althouse, you unappreciative commenter!
Blue paint. Better than the glue that some sniff, Dami, get your head out of that bag and recognize the brilliance of Althouse, you unappreciative commenter!
Althouse is quite intelligent.
She's got a HUGE blind spot when it comes to Obama.
If she will ignore 4 years of his actual policies because he says "I will be different this time" --- it is not an act of logic or ration.
Re closed versus upen systems--IIRC from my thermodynamics classes, a closed system is one that permits no external inputs. Clearly the earth's atmosphere fails to qualify as a closed system under the thermodynamics definition.
bagoh20,
It would be nice not to err but it's unrealistic. As far as your comment that to do what has been widely suggested would cost many human lives and great economic destruction, how so?
I agree with the position to develop cleaner energy which is one of the suggested courses of action you mentioned would somehow do harm to lives and the economy and I also agree we must plan to adapt to the affects of global warming since it does seem to be occurring.
Althouse: "If you insist on making up other things...I'm not going to read your comment...I will avert my eyes..."
You know, that sounds like a...Flounce-off!
You're threatening a flounce-off on your own blog.
Cheese-and-crackers, Althouse. You offered campaign advice to someone; many commenters interpret that to mean that you'd like to see him re-elected. I personally wouldn't offer advice to anyone if I didn't want to see them succeed. Who provides bad advice, purposefully? Who provides what they think is good advice, to someone who they'd like to see fail to realize their ambition?
Very flouncy, Althouse. Please raise your game.
Clearly the earth's atmosphere fails to qualify as a closed system under the thermodynamics definition.
It doesn't even qualify as a closed system under biologists' definition.
It's the cadence of his voice, right?
Ugh, that halting cadence? When I stopped listening to him and going strictly to transcripts it was because of his stuttering when he was off teleprompter.
With his latest buffoonery about the SCOTUS, I listened to a couple of clips and while he seems to have gotten control of that stuttering, the...halting one......or two....word......cadence is something.....I find....even more....grating on my.....ears.....that George Bush's......malapropisms.
And I didn't think that possible!
damikesc said...
“Why not subject developing countries to perpetual poverty while destroying our economies in the process over a theory with virtually no actual scientific legitimacy?”
Are you a scientist?
I wonder if some people live in a parallel universe or something. Bush's ratings were low because the RIGHT turned on him??? God, that is borderline demented. The Right then and now loved him. He was there boy pushing their extremist agenda. The moderates who supported him left. Moderate Republicans who were tired of his wacko religious supporters and Cheny led foriegn policy disasters. Moderate Dems who saw their 401K turn into a 101 K under his watch and moderate independents who could not take it anymore. Obama has slavishly tried to curry favor with the Reps and play ball with people who kept treating him as if he was a terrorist who seized power in a coup. The Left does not like the fact that he kept Gitmo open, did not punish wall street or the Bushies for their crimes and did not give them Universal Healthcare. He could give the Right everything they want- a theocratic state where the poor stave and the rich live in gated communities and they would still hate him.
Are you a scientist?
Crimso is and posts here regularly. As I know him personally, I can tell you his opinion is the same as damikesc's. Does that count?
I may be wrong, but I'd guess that very few commenting here regularly now would get the "flounce-off" reference. I LOL'd.
Also, the profile is hilarious.
Pragmatist tried: "God, that is borderline demented. The Right then and now loved him. He was there boy pushing their extremist agenda."
Hmmm, projection. Check.
Unacquainted with facts. Check.
Use of the word "extremist". Check.
All rich people = Republican. Check.
Use of the word "theocrat". Check.
Defintely liberal troll. Look guy, you missed two rhetorical points - "hate" and "racist/bigots". Like the professor says "up your game".
"Are you a scientist?"
No, I'm not. But I had dual majors in math and physics and graduated magna. I vividly recall our professor in astrophysics, Adolf Witte, working out the affect of various greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere (and the atmosphere of Mars).
No computer models were necessary; but calculating the upper bound of its impact was a pretty straightforward calculation. CO2 is affected by only a couple of very narrow frequency bands in the electromagnetic spectrum -- it's essentially transparent to all radiation outside of those bands.
Its effect is real, but close to negligible and nowhere near accounting for 2 or 3 degrees C or whatever the horse-shit claim is for a tripling from its meager trace-gas status as something like 0.04% concentration.
And as Robert Lindzen of MIT pointed out, if CO2 was driving significant warming, you'd see it in the troposphere first, and we don't.
Are YOU a scientist, 36? Not that it matters, really; I look more at someone's argument than I do their credentials.
damikesc said...
“Did they MENTION any plans to improve enforcement?”
That doesn’t answer the question.
“Haven't they, in fact, spent years suing states for doing THEIR job in relation to immigration?”
They have sued states in cases where the states were acting outside their jurisdiction.
“DoJ with State as a backup. Funny, Bush figured out how to do it.”
So there was a breakdown in the ATF which is the agency of the DoJ. Hence my point about proper manning for the agency. And who is preventing that? Not Obama.
“I have. Volcanic activity DWARFS it.”
I disagree:
“According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.”
“Might want to re-read the article. Only thing forbidden was housing them in the US.”
Congress will not authorize funding for a stateside facility. Additionally, from the article:
“Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives anywhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit the release of a detainee to another country.
Neither is likely: U.S. District Court judges are not ruling in favor of captives in the dozens of unlawful detention suits winding their way from Cuba to the federal court in Washington. And on the occasions when those judges have ruled for detainees, the U.S. Court of Appeals has consistently overruled them in an ever-widening definition of who can be held as an affiliate of al Qaida or the Taliban.”
“Heck, why not cite how none of them voted for his budgets?”
I gave you examples where they all did not support Obama. Enough said.
Post a Comment