Friday Open Thread
Lots of news: Bhutto is under house arrest , Merck is paying almost $5B to settle Vioxx suits
, Mukasey was confirmed 53-40 as AG
, and Giuliani's police commissioner and Bush's DHS nominee Kerik was indicted
.
With respect to the Mukasey vote, for those liberals who are disappointed by the Senate Democrats, note that the nays included moderate Dems elected last cycle like Tester, Casey, Webb, and McCaskill. The most prominent Dem yeas were Feinstein and Schumer. Candidates Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain, and Obama all didn't vote.
Happy Friday...
Submitted by Brendan on Fri, 2007-11-09 06:55
Tags:
Comments :
It is my understanding
“My understanding is President Clinton’s not on the ballot.”
Yes I know America has been a country of firsts...... but isn't weird to have an ex-President running for President by proxy, no matter the merits of Hillary as a canddate.
Protecting the little lady.
When hounded by reporters in Iowa for a response, Mr. Obama's reply was a look of bemusedment and this statement.
As more reporters pressed Barack for a response, he said "You've got the quote. If you are saying that part of your basis for experience is the work you did on health care, then presumably when it didn’t work, that’s part of the experience as well.”
As he was walking away he left one last comment for the gaggle,
My understanding is President Clinton's not on the ballot.
:+)
source
It is the economy, stupid.
I'm not a financial guru.....
....but my brother is. He's a VP in charge of corporate accounts at a major Mid-Atlantic region bank.
He has basically told me that now is not a good time to flip off the boss. We're about to enter a worldwide recession, worse than anything since 1982.
Batten down the hatches, folks. And try not to take on any new debt.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
It the S&L Savings and Loan Crises
on steroids.
Bad paper floated as investment capital around the world.
Assessments of write downs "unknown, not ascertainable, opaque, massive".
They are doing their best to "take care' of the problem and hide it. The Fed keeps injecting liquidity to 'fix' or rescue the problem.
Where were the risk managers, and why didn't anyone (CEO's in a bubble) listen to them?
Wasn't that Prince guy at Citibank somehow connected to Enron???
It was a bold plan for the makrets. Offsets with no cash value offered up as investment capital.
It is the economy, stupid.
Again, MissL
It's a monetary issue. You said it yourself.
Still waiting for that diary
"John's Big Fix for Monetary Policy"
It is the economy, stupid.
Why bother, MissL?
Have you asked the question 'Why?'
Why is the fed injecting money. Then follow backwards the step by step evolution how this problem arose.
The answer is fairly obvious once you look into it a little deeper. Unregulated lending practices, cheap money, and bundling piles of mortgage debt as collatoral in the global market as capital for investment.
What is most astonishing is the number of institutions, and individuals that bought into this ponzi scheme.
Putting assests off the books should be against the law.
Loan sharks like petty theives were allowed to thrive.
Bundling loan debt at insane leverages and then repackaging and hiding it is criminal? (or maybe not)
The message was skirt the regulations, damn the laws, and make a killing in the market.
What do all of these things have in common? The Las Vegas mentality of wanting something for nothing, the get rich quick American Dream, or what is more commonly known as the human condition.
That is why we have laws. But those in favor of deregulation won the day.
The money was unregulated, cheap and off the books, a dream come true for the fans of Club for Growth. Do they know that the tax payers are footing the bill for this ponzi scheme every time the feds inject money. Talk about a reach around.
It is the economy, stupid.
Sorry MissL,
but no.
You are pulling so many disparate ideas together that do not have direct links.
You're a passionately lost person.
Don't be sorry
Just offer a rational argument why I am incorrect.
Of course these are all related.
And no I am not passionately lost. Saying that I am passionately lost is not a counterpoint to an issue, unless you want to make things personal.
It's all related to human foibles. Just ask Alan Greenspan with his grand theories, of human reaction. Irrational exuberance and irrational fears in the markets.
It is the economy, stupid.
Cripes, MissL
My mind almost goes to into overload trying to think of how to explain why you are wrong.
When I say those things are not related, it's in an explanatory way. They may be related but not so in terms of explaining the phenomena of interest rates, inflation and recessions and how some things affect other things.
It's a lot of noise that doesn't make sense when you examine it closely.
The most overriding factor the poisons your way thinking is that you make everything seem almost deliberate and intentional as if it were all part of elaborate scheme in which the elements that you oppose are somehow conveniently and willfully responsible for everything.
In that sense, it doesn't pass a serious smell test. And yes it is personal...it HAS TO BE personal because the problem is not that you're a liberal and I'm a libertarian. The problem is not one of ideology. No, the problem is that stridently and willfully choose to misunderstand, in a "feel good" sort of way, the most basic elements of monetary policy and how it effects markets that are influenced by it.
Rather than, for example, building from the fact that there is nothing moral or intentional or of will when an apple falls from a tree, you seem to doing the equivalent of attributing will and intention to the apple in relation to the ground and drawing conclusions therefrom. It's hard to go much further when this is what's happening.
I disagree
It isn't that I misunderstand, it is that you do.
This is what I refer to when I speak of this evangelical element to the libertarian philosophy that is such an utter turn off. YOu act as if you and only you (libertarian purists) have the answer, and that everyone else is a fool and won't be 'saved'. As if this purist divine understanding of monetary policy will somehow save the world. The problem is that libertarians have to live in the real world... and deal with real people like me. Something of which you seem incapable.
It's silly. If you can't explain 'it' simply, then how is 'it' to be understood or debated?
It is the economy, stupid.
this has nothing to do with libertarianism
nothing whatsoever in any way. You can't even see that because you're obsessed with looking for it.
Don't lump yourself in with the "real people". I see that it is mainly only you who has this severe problem.
Tsk tsk tsk
'Don't lump yourself in with 'real people'. Ha! Why resort to personal insults yet again.
Sheesh.
Your argument is decidedly narrow and wholly undefined. We may as well call it
John's Pixie dust argument. The only concrete element is those who disagree are not real people.That's Ludicrous John.
It is the economy, stupid.
MissL
do you realize that keep drawing things out of what I say to push this further and further away from the original thread topic?
congrats.
John, let me ask it this way
Do you believe that a more libertarian economical structure would make these types of sudden and harsh economic reallignments less damaging or more rare?
Personally I think history shows that you'd get more of a robber baron style economy where the extraordinarily rich were the ones manipulating the economy rather than governmental policy. (Which, interestingly is kind of what we got during the Bush administration anyways)
knocienz,
read the whole thread and try to disregard what I've said about libertarianism in my last post since it was forced out me by MissL's
taking the discussion in a different direction and tell what you think about the actual issue of monetary policy and its implications.
John, lots of back and forth
Between you and MissL, but I have no idea of what your point was. I think I understand what MissL was saying (may be wrong) and the loose translation that I got was "Yo, Mr Libertarian who thinks that the free market will fix everything, don't you realize that it was the big corporations manipulating things by pushing bad loans and bad investments to make a quick buck? Wouldn't it have been nice to have government regulation to keep them from doing that rather than getting in bed with them and giving them everything they wanted?" As I said, that's my take. MissL can give me a 1-10 score for comprehension skills.
My view on monetary policy is based on my view that the free market is a very powerful engine which needs people providing maintenance to, among other things, make sure it doesn't blow up because some numbskulls are seeing how long they can redline it before it melts. Recent policy has been about pushing that engine to go as fast as possible 'cause 'fast is good!'
To be fair though, I think spending trillions of dollars of extra debt and weakening the dollar has had as much of an impact as any monetary policy. (These were war polcies and pure poltics rather than monetary policy)
Yo knocienz: Socre 6.219
I was making an even more ridiculous broad assertion, that is in fact that human condition that has led corporations, loan sharks, and all the rest to where we are now. (Isn't the human condition why we have laws in the first place) Unregulated free markets and human nature brought us the global glop of 'I don't know how much liquidity is in the equity, do you?'.
Bizarre is the seemingly large number of people involved from top to bottom to get us where we are now.
I like your analogy of the free market as a powerful engine. It needs tune ups, the right kind of fuel and smart drivers and mechanics to keep it purring. Also spotters to make sure these firebrands don't go out of bounds. I also like the redlining it analogy. The problem is no one knows if this engine is gonna burst into flames, cause they aren't sure what the fuel mix is. I think that is what the feds are trying to figure out.
NO matter how it happened, it is in no one's interest to have the world economy go into a global meltdown. (is it?)
It is the economy, stupid.
Ah, so as one of my favorite blog posts ever said
Your first paragraph reminded me of this
If you haven't read it before, it is so worth a read. John, you'd hate it (I think I posted it here before. Don't recall if it was to you) but it is about big L and not small l ibertarianism. Thought MissL would get a kick out of it though.
knocienz,
I'll read it in just a minute but I really want to make it clear here that this matter is not about ideology. Read the post I made below and you'll see it's quite academic and non-ideological.
Just because MissL reverts back to my ideological leanings ALL THE TIME, doesn't mean it's always warranted. This matter is not about libertarians, liberals or conservatives or socialists. It's forensic monetary policy discussion.
Don't fall into MissL's trap that everything I say is a veiled attempt at "evangelizing" (her words).
Next thing you know, I'll post a thread about football and she'll be looking for a libertarian agenda in it.
Funny thing is, most discussions I have with MissL about libertarians are usually brought to that point by her from a non-ideology discussion that she derailed....like this one.
No relation to conversation
Her comment reminded me of a post. It is Libertarian related but has next to nothing to do with this thread.
OK
I'm just sayin'....that's all.
Yes I have seen that before
One of my all time favorites was from the Nitpicker, and how corporate pixie dust was 'the' magic problem solver. I had it marked but the page no longer exists.
It is just an age old story, we have seen over and over, but now that our planet is smaller it seems these kinds of unethical practices are magnified by our shrinking world and our instant internet global awareness.
It is the economy, stupid.
kconcienz,
well, nice effort. If you didn't get my point, it's because you;re coming into the middle of the conversation that started the other day about recessions.....why they happen and what doesn't really have anything to do with them happening....and the role of monetary policy in them....which is virtually the whole cause.
The thing is, though, that you're "interpretation" of what she said, for however accurate it may be in conveying her views, doesn't really explain the issue. So in that sense, it may very well be accurate.
Monetary policy has little to do directly with government policies on regulations or most of the rest of the things that you mention in the "Interpretation".
Matters concerning interest rates and money supply...monetary policy....are what matter.
MissL seems astute enough to notice that (very low rates) if you read above. The problem is that she completely mis-applies it in explaining the matter. It's not ideology. It's a simple B&W matter of keeping the horse before the cart.
What the fed does needs to be understood in the context of what they HAVE BEEN doing. They have been lowering interest rates far below what the proper rate would have been by some more objective standard. What rate that objective standard would use would win someone the Nobel Prize. Nonetheless, we know enough to know that it's too low.
Artificially low interest rates are like artificially low prices. Imagine tomorrow that the government put a price cap on gasoline at $2.00 per gallon. What do you think would happen at the gas pumps? Think back to the seventies with rationing and long lines.
Interest rates, like prices, give information. And when either are made to be too low or too high, the info signals are distorted the market responds to the distorted signals and we get shortages or surpluses. With interest rates, it's much more subtle and convoluted.
With interest rates, we get growth and investment as well as money supply increases that are at odds with real conditions on the ground day to day. The discords it creates are mounting and the effects will soon be unavoidable. Money supply will have to tighten soon (rates will go up). and when that happens a recession will set in.
By products of this easy credit are found in the subprime crisis. These loans wouldn't have mattered without an economic slowdown. But the low rates fueled growth that was a mirage. Now the cluster of mistakes from artificially low credit will soon come home to roost. These loans are only part of it. A lot of business investments will prove unsustainable under changing conditions that rates did not hint at.
My explanation is not perfect and surly lacking in certain details but it's a basically clear and objective assessment that transcends whatever ideology one subscribes to.
How best to handle this mess is a matter of ideology, IMO.
In any event, however, let's remember that booms and busts reside primarily in monetary policy and this next bust will be no exception.
As for the falling dollar, yes, heavy spending CAN help weaken the dollar...but remember where all those extra dollars are coming from.
also, when reading this
you soon realize that markets are in effect pawns in this larger context....much the way one views Darth Vader when they learn of the Emporer's role. The subordinate role of much of what we see in market behavior when we consider the role of money supply and monetary policy becomes very clear.
Monetary supply runs independent of market processes....though it shouldn't.
John, well clearly
I don't disagree with what you said. However these problems are not government related, or rather, they are, but only in the instance and not by definition. During the Laisseze-faire days, the corporations, monopolies and cartels did the same thing, artificially affecting and constraining the market to their personal advantage. These types of activities had a similar impact.
I'd go so far as to say that that is exactly what is happening right now. 'Industry' has been manipulating the market via the government. The monetary policy has been politicized, just as science, foreign policy etc.
Too much "Who would you rather have a beer with" crap. (not from you, just society in general). We are getting what we deserve. That's Democracy for you.
Let's stay on topic
come on buddy, that's painful. If artificial booms and ensuing busts are provoked by the fed's loose and at time's sloppy and irresponsible monetary policy, how can you say it's not government related?
You make quite a leap after that...
That's a tough thing to claim and it only obscures this matter because it doesn't really mean anything precise.
The Fed sets rates and then reacts to the messes it starts. It's not trying to do anything other than the best course of action it feels is needed for short term relief.
As a matter of opinion, I think the Fed's role needs to be revised in a way that will help alleviate this constant cycle.
Not what I meant
I'm saying that the Fed and therefore government are the culprit this time around, but that even when they aren't mucking around, it still happens. Sloppy or crooked cops are a HUGE problem, but getting rid of the cops doesn't lower the crime rate.
I'm finding it hard to dicuss properly in post form. I've got chat open if you are amiable.
I tried the chat...
it didn't work for some reason.
But anyway, look...
ask yourself this...
How would "this" happen (and I assume you mean downturns and recessions) if the Fed had better (dare I say...near perfect) policy?
Gimme a real scenario.
If you mean the wide-spread bad lending practices and liquidity crisis specifically, again:
How could this happen without lax monetary policy?
Monetary policy is what people (markets) react to. Initially low rates and the boom and good times it brings on affect consumer behavior. It creates a sense of complacency after time.
I'm not saying perfect rates are possible
(?) but something that is more accurate and less prone to triggering bad and unwise market activity in large clusters has to be within reach.
click on the globe icon in the lower left to connect (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
John I had some time to think
And I have some questions.
Do you consider monetary policy at least partially reactive? i.e. The ideal perfect monetary policy would still have to react to the changes in the rest of the economy and would lessen the volatility, but not necessarily counter all other forces that impact the economy?
If so, can one not still consider a (chosen and escalated) war in one of the world energy suppliers a cause of economic impact? Likewise, a drop in skilled workers who are forced to leave their more productive jobs to go and fight in that war (Reservists and National Guardsmen)?
I'll assume massive tax cuts during such increased spending goes under the heading of monetary policy but certainly not under the Fed.
To keep my 'free market as an engine analogy', I agree that having an automatic transmission rather than the current stick shift would almost certainly be better.
good point knz
war has always been a reason to massively manipulate monetary policy. It happened during the civil war. As per last nights chat, even Friedman said the a tighter policy reform would never even get considered wirhour special powers during wartime.
Other reasons, not really except maybe to avoid massive deflation during a recession. Even there, pragmatists like friedman would have disagreement with purists who insist on other measures. But that's a complex topic that I wouldnt be good at discussing in detail.
Corporatism is by definition, a function of government...
It is by definition and not by instance.
there is no credibility in the argument that libertarianism leads to any systemic, sustained monopolies in a free market.
Monopolism in 19th century America fundamentally arose from control of the railroads, with the transcontinental railroads being an act mandated by the US government.
Let's keep that in mind. Historically, it made perfect sense, but it was also this explicit example of corporatism that sowed the seeds for the likes of the Carnegies and the Rockefellers who are still held up today as the poster boys against "the free market."
Even so, during the 19th century, America transformed from an agrarian British Colony into an industrial economy that absorbed a massive number of immigrants and became the World's creditor.
The 20th century is the age of progressivism, not the age of libertarianism. It wasn't libertarianism that turned America into the World's Global Military Empire. Under the more libertarian philosophy in the 19th century, America became a great Industrial power and the World's creditor. Under the Progressive philosophy in the 20th century, America has become the world's largest debtor and has had her industrial/manufactured base decimated. It wasn't the Libertarians who created the federal Reserve, setup Bretton Woods, etc...
It certainly wasn't the libertarians who created the concept of the Social Security Number. That is the invention of the Progressives. I can't think of a more "corporatist invention" than the Social Secuirty number which has not only allowed private companies to track you but assign an economic viability score for every American, without their consent.
That's progressivism for you.
Hardly progressivism
Most of the debt you are referring to came about during the Reagan and Bush (43) years. False Conservativism (Borrow and Spend) and Progressivism are not the same thing even if some people would like to toss them into the same bucket.
There were plenty of monopolies that were only tangentially related to the railroads, the vertical and horizontal oil monopolies etc.
I disagree that Corporatism is by definition a function of government, unless you are willing to put all contracting as a function of government. Are you for removing the corporate concept and requiring all such aggregates to be shared liability partnerships?
And to put my comments down as 'against the free market' is silly. I'm against a completely unregulated free market because the system lends itself to extremely stable local maxima without another force to counteract that.
I'll be happy to cede economic expertise to others, but complex system modeling and state space optimization is a place I'm quite willing to argue, even when it intersects economics.
No, I'm referring to Medicare and SS Liabilities
which dwarf the Reagan/Bush debt(though I'm hardly defending their spending).
I myself go back and forth in my own head concerning the idea of legal personhood for non-persons.
You will have to clarify what variables you are modeling with respect to your statement that "the system lends itself to local maxima"
Re: State Spaces - I'll only somewhat answer this
First, I don't believe we have Medicare and SS "liabilities" as we can change our funding levels any time we (being the voters) actually want to. I'd say that you don't like the structure that taxes for and pays for these activities.
On state spaces, I can only answer vaguely because I've never seen economists commit to a function that measures "economic goodness" (something necessary to validate optimizations).
Just in case you haven't dealt with the term before, the concept is that as one searches a state space for an absolute maximum, there is a strong push towards "better solutions" and one will often be in a state such that every minor change is less optimal than the current condition. You need a big change to get away from that local optimal condition to get where you can make a strong improvement.
Economic examples include companies whose positioning is such that they can stifle competitiion by taking localized or short-term losses, or use defensive patenting (applying for a patent and then refusing to produce because their current product is more profitable even if inferior. The defensive patent is just used to make it more difficult for a small company to build the better mousetrap) It takes a major disruptive technology to compete with a monopoly.
I'm well aware of the term state(phase) space...
I have a math and physics educational background so I am well aware of the concept...
In economics, there actually is a concept of the utilitarian function, usually associated with a branch of economics classified as welfare economics.
Your example of the patent system does nothing to counter my assertion that persistant monopolies in a free market are not viable without interferrence of the state.
in any event, you are still not clear what economic variables your are modeling in terms of your assertion that monopoly is a local maxima of your proposed phase space.
And, lastly, I don't think it is credible to contend that SS and Medicare aren't real liabilities.
Property doesn't exist without a interference from the state
I'm sure it is an issue of definitions, but how do you have contract (or any other legal) enforcement, property definition or any artifacts of a "free market" without interference from the state?
Patents, trademarks and all intellectual property are enforced by the state. So are all regulations and laws.
Yes, it is hyperbole, but frankly, I have no idea where you intend to draw the line here on what you consider 'interference from' vs 'performing the function of' the state. Without that understanding, I expect the rest of this comment will be pointless, but I'll put forth a good faith effort.
Because I consider this a bit of an economist trap. I have my own concepts on what fit my personal function depicting "goodness" of the market and I expect everyone else does too. Diversity in products allows us to independently maximize to the greatest extent possible (the desirability of which is the fundamental arguemtn for a "free market")
Anyways, what's the point on this? My original comment was that believing in some level of regulation is not the same as being against the free market. Do you believe in a completely unregulated market, and if not, what's the point of this back and forth?
It's been on it's way for a while
We've been facing this inevitability for a while now. It will probably be rough on a lot of folks who have not been taking a bit longer view of the financial situation.
We survived the 80's. We'll make it through this one too. But it's bound to be unpleasant for a while.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Notice a pattern here?
1989-1993 (Bush I):
War, Recession, Record Deficits
1993-2001 (Clinton):
Peace, Prosperity, Record Surpluses
2001-present (Bush II):
War, Recession, Record Deficits
Vote Democrat (but not Hillary, she's NOT the same as Bill).
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Now, now, now
Y'all are just being Negative Nellies.
Why don't you post some happy economic news?
qui tacet consentire
Not from where I'm standing
I'm sitting on about $70,000 of student loans between my fiancee and I. I'll take the inflation, TYVM.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Party in SL Sunday Night 6PM Pacific Time
Ender, Charles, Prime, you have invitations awaiting you in world. Everyone is welcome.
Prime, they are teasing me with hints of a live performance at the party. . .don't think it will be Nance, though ;} Sojurn is too expensive, Max is too, maybe Dann? or Silas? or SanityInn?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Is there something specific that is being celebrated?
.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Yes ;}
Sigh. Tlaloc will scold, and the neighbors will be shocked. This might border on TMI but what the hell.
We're calling it Lodi and BackHome's "It's NOT A Wedding!" Party. I think I met BH after the last time you logged on.
Between my neighbor Soul and I we own about 15K square meters of the sim, fronted by several sims of open water. Soul has re-landscaped his place for the stage, a dancefloor, a skydiving platform, jetski and power boat rezzers, etc etc. Nice guy, Soul. From NYC, retired Airforce, has tons of free time. A real old timer, knows everybody.
I am guessing we will have some form of live music. Soul and BackHome are plotting. I know Soul asked Sojurn to perform (who has been sounding fabulous lately, btw, and who is now getting college credits towards his broadcasting major for his work in SL) but he said Soj wanted too much money. So I dunno what's going on or who it might be. Rich? Yan? Rookie? They might just be yanking my chain, but they did build a stage. I did invite Soj to the party though.
You should log in to at least see the invitation. We had an IM chat log texturize itself as my skin, with incredibly hilarious consequences.
Does Prime own a dress? She'd be hot in a tux, too.
And for the virtuous among us, my hubby's SL "wedding" was in July. . . he and his partner are having a blast.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I see no reason to scold.
titter perhaps.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh no
not titter -- laugh out loud!
It's insane and stupid and tons of fun. You know, fun. That meaningless stuff one does to laugh and relax. It's much more fun than a video game ;} and I know you play those. I mean, you run around and murder other players for fun and profit? And you call this titter-able?
And Prime, naked would be fine. I dare ya. But wait until the end of the party and collect some cash for each piece you drop. I invited Harv; he would really dig that ;} Soul would pay well too. Don't expect Lodi to join you however. She's not that sort of avatar. I aways hated naked night at the Damned; sheer and short is the most I'll do, still. Give me a decent set of lingerie over a birthday suit anytime. How weird is that. An inhibited cartoon.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Dont you mean...
..and inhibited puppet?
... you're afraid of your puppet showing too much "skin".
That's funny stuff, right there.
But not as funny as me being turned on by the sight of my own puppet. ;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Wrong games
I don;t really like MMORPGs. They never hold my interest for long. And even in MMORPGS I hate PVP.
So I mainly run around and murder game sprites for fun and profit. Although lately I've found very few games that haven't disappointed me. I have had some fun with Hellgate: London.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
hehe
Prime has plenty of fabulous clothing items to choose from.
...and now, I'm going to go visit my therapist - because when I start using "fabulous" in a sentence, I need help.
Maybe Prime will come nekked. She's got a hot body.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
This morning NPR was talking about Pakistan.
They made a very interesting observation that I haven't seen any where else in the MSM or blogsphere.
They noted that all the people that Musharraf has rounded up and jailed or placed under house arrest are moderates. So let's recount what happened:
Musharraf claims that Pakistan is about to be overtaken by extremists and in order to save the country he needs to fire half the Supreme Court (who was just about to deliver a verdict saying he was unconstitutionally re-elected last month), jails most the opposition politicians. Rounds up and jails/house arrests all the lawyers & civil servants who protested against him. Disbands the Constitution. Disbands Parliment.
What about the actual extremists? Why is he jailing the moderates and leaving the extremists alone?
Why are we supporting another military dictator in a country that has nukes and is actually reasonably educated and has a solid Constitutional Government? Does anyone else not see that we are screwing ourselves by continuing to support this Dictator?
And Bush was touting his steadfast adherence to
... his "freedom agenda" in an interview with a German publication earlier this week.
He said history would view hims as steadfast and strong on spreading democracy.
Right.
While we're shipping people in secret to places like Egypt and Uzbekistan to be tortured and supporting dictators and anti-democracy leaders in Pakistan and Georgia.
Okay, George.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Let's just declare that Musharraf
is the new Shah of Pakistan.
The last time we set up a shah it worked out so well.
qui tacet consentire
Ever wonder if we have same problems as Pakistan
A violent extremist group, left or right, and doing suicide bombing anywhere and assasinating leaders, and rallies and strikes everywhere----
what do you think will the reaction by US leaders/Bush Cheney be?
If 3500 died in 911 suicide bombing--a one time attack what if it was like Pakistan - a chronic problem?
Here's where it starts: Consumer sentiment craters
Look out below...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No. no, no
That's more of that depressing, blame-Bush stuff you see at extremist sites like DKos. Why don't you find some happy-happy economic news to post here.
qui tacet consentire
Ender has secret sources for that stuff.
Like...
"Oh, look! Homes are getting cheaper!"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Iraq Déjà Vu but with an n: Cheney Pressuring Intel Analysts,
Stifling Dissent, Manipulating Intelligence
Yea that's a thread today over at ThinkProgress
. It says:
1) Administration Stifling Dissent. The draft Iran NIE was reportedly completed a year ago, but the White House rejected it because it contained dissenting views
2) Administration Pressuring Analysts. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi told IPS that “intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House.”
Are we gonna attack another country over bogus intel? Do we really need to shoot ourselves in the OTHER foot now?
Sure, we are.
And the leading Democratic presidential candidate is going along for the ride.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Hillary's a hawk, no doubt, trying to coo like a dove
Which Dem candidate do you like as far as foreign policy in general and I guess Iran in particular goes?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
None of the frontrunners.
I don't have a favorite.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Anyone who starts a war with Iran
Should be tarred and feathered and run out of Washington on a rail.
qui tacet consentire
I say we should just give em 'harmless little dunk'
you know how the freedom fighting neocons describe waterboarding.
A harmless little dunk, every hour on the hour. 'They' (William Kristol) say it's just like a swim in the pond.
But that wouldn't do any good. IF "they" do the titanically stupid, it will be too late anyway.
It is the economy, stupid.
Need a laugh/Take a Comedy Break
The New Media in Action
23/6 Some of the News Most of the Time
The team of writers is led by Jason Reich from the Daily Show.
A sampling:
Is Waterboarding Torture?
IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?
"I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar. ...If it amounts to torture, then it's not constitutional."
IS JESSICA BIEL HOT?
"Estimation of attractiveness varies widely based on factors such as culture, race, gender, and individual preference, so any attempt to render a categorical judgment would be irresponsible and fatuous in the extreme. However, if she is hot, I would do her."
It is the economy, stupid.
lol
That's pretty good.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Karl Rove Whines
IN the new shiny WSJ owned by the Rupert.
GOP Guru Points Finger at Democrats
Weird how all he talks about is democrats, and their 'failure to lead'. NO mention of the GOP anywhere, except to say that democrats have been ever so mean to the poor Republicans victimized by some unknown democratic weakness.
Claiming the democrats have been trying to please the fringe is exactly the opposite of the truth. What the democratic leadership has been doing is trying to please the middle by keeping the blue dogs from losing their seats.
It is the economy, stupid.
You go Karl!
I mean when you compare the dirty hippies on the left to the paragons of virtue like Bill O'Reilly
(now complete phone ranting with happy ending), Bill Bennett 
(lady luck be kind to me tonight), Rush Limbaugh 
(Dominican Republic here I come) and the rest to the pinko commies on the left....There Really Is No Comparison!
I could go on but the listing of Conservatives doing deeds their mothers would frown upon would get kinda long. Please though....as a pre-weekend thread feel free to add your own examples.
McCain's mom trashes Mormons
LOL
qui tacet consentire
hahahahahahaha damn man that is good!
You missed this sweet part though (from dkos diary)
:
oh and link to video here
- it's Meet McCain's Mom.