tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post116394570229211536..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: Filibuster this, filibuster thatMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164135385110305352006-11-21T13:56:00.000-05:002006-11-21T13:56:00.000-05:00I'm not going to do the ad hominem thing with you,...I'm not going to do the <I>ad hominem</I> thing with you, x. If you want to debate facts and opinions, bring it on. But if you want to sit there and pound your chest like Tarzan and keep calling me Poopy-Face, you are on your own.<BR/><BR/>Another thing I won't do is play dialectic Whack-A-Mole with you. If you stick to the topic at hand until you have nothing further to say, we can debate productively. But in my opinion your tactic of changing topics from post to post is a symptom of either intellectual bankruptcy or outright dishonesty. I don't want to think either of those things about you, and I won't support your behavior by reacting to it anymore.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I have a new <I>nom de clavier</I>, thanks to you. From now on, I shall sign myself as I have done here. When a reactionary flings crap on me, I wear it with pride.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164129437928018892006-11-21T12:17:00.000-05:002006-11-21T12:17:00.000-05:00Oh, that was just prep to the smack-down.Oh, that was just prep to the smack-down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164124876562885532006-11-21T11:01:00.000-05:002006-11-21T11:01:00.000-05:00Let's see: one of us is quoting the Constitution a...Let's see: one of us is quoting the Constitution and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The other is making potty jokes about the other person's name.<BR/><BR/>I will leave it to the jury to decide who the grown-up is. Do we have a verdict?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164119955273146342006-11-21T09:39:00.000-05:002006-11-21T09:39:00.000-05:00No, I meant compared to Schutrick, I was the grown...No, I meant compared to Schutrick, I was the grownup.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164118276662048692006-11-21T09:11:00.000-05:002006-11-21T09:11:00.000-05:00cyert134Well, at least y’all are talking to each o...cyert134Well, at least y’all are talking to each other. (heh)<BR/><BR/>I might slip in that the original post concerned Mitch McConnell asserting that he is no Frist, and will hold the Senate hostage if the democrats do not acquiesce to the President’s judicial nominees (the Senate’s special responsibility). There is no tradition, there is no bipartisanship, there is only the magic number; 60 (not 51). The republicans need to demonstrate to corporate America that they still have the majority of power, so corporate America goes back to donating only to Republicans. <BR/><BR/>The economic record of the last twenty years is, in my opinion, mixed, with enough caveats for both sides. I do think Clinton lucked in the Internet boom, without it he (or the Republican Congress) would not have been nearly as successful. <BR/><BR/>I have to take some issue with the characterization of Republicans as grown-ups. That particular myth seemed to develop when the republicans were a congressional minority. The last six years of a republican controlled congress largely unable to control itself have wiped out that myth, and the republicans will have to earn the grown up label again. This is in my opinion, though I’ll bet you could find a fair amount of agreement on any street in any town in the country.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164068167897328672006-11-20T19:16:00.000-05:002006-11-20T19:16:00.000-05:00You win, x. I can't keep up with the way you keep ...You win, x. I can't keep up with the way you keep changing the subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164059347393459402006-11-20T16:49:00.000-05:002006-11-20T16:49:00.000-05:00Well, Clinton did indeed, in the Democratic mold, ...Well, Clinton did indeed, in the Democratic mold, weaken the military. This helped lower the Federal budget. Bush had to spend more to rebuild it, even before 9/11.<BR/><BR/>Another thing was the gridlock that occured after Newt & Co. won the House. When they two sides couldn't agree on a new budget, the government operated under resolution, keeping the government working under existing budget levels.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, no new programs, no increases. Pretty good deal, actually.<BR/><BR/>You keep servin' em up, I'll keep smashin' em back at ya.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164050684094445072006-11-20T14:24:00.000-05:002006-11-20T14:24:00.000-05:00Well, you are unquestionably the expert on the "ec...Well, you are unquestionably the expert on the "ecnomoyic" effects of "defits". Can't argue with you there.<BR/><BR/>Grown-ups like you certainly understand this complicated stuff better than a grasshopper such a I, so please explain: If we keep tripling the debt as we did with Reagan/Bush and tripling it again with W, who's gonna pay the interest?<BR/><BR/><I>Well, its 20 years later, and we're still waiting for those consequences. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes we are. Damn that Clinton for paying down the debt and delaying the consequences; but no need to get impatient, it won't be much longer now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164048438661162012006-11-20T13:47:00.000-05:002006-11-20T13:47:00.000-05:00Huh?Anyway, the scare tactic of "defits for our ch...Huh?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the scare tactic of "defits for our children" is dubious at best.<BR/><BR/>This first came out during the 1980's, a generation ago, during Reagan's two terms. The military had been thoroughly eviscerated during the "Volar" days, and a buildup began. Liberals decried the deficit then as onerous for our children, with dire consequences.<BR/><BR/>Well, its 20 years later, and we're still waiting for those consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164046976236991612006-11-20T13:22:00.000-05:002006-11-20T13:22:00.000-05:00An excellent offering, x. Perhaps your best ever.F...An excellent offering, x. Perhaps your best ever.<BR/><BR/>First, I want to compliment you on the clever transformation of my name. No one has ever thought to do that. Your play on words is a clear sign of an insightful, penetrating mind.<BR/><BR/>Next I must apologize for not offering any solid references and numbers as you did. I'm willing to bet that your documentation would have been even more detailed, had you not been so busy with your latest textbook on the "ecnomoy", which promises to explicate the most expeditious way to pass the burden of military excesses to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.<BR/><BR/>Finally, let me emphasize and clarify a point that you made so well. I note that your exhaustive analysis referred to the "recession cycle," not the recession itself. As your know, the <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recession_x.htm" REL="nofollow">2001 recession</A> actually began a month or two into Mr. Bush's administration and was over before the end of the year. So by the time the effects of his tax cuts surfaced, both the recession and the Clinton expansion were distant memories.<BR/><BR/>And your use of the word "grown-ups" was even more brilliant than when Mr. Bush's staff used it at when he went into office. As in "the grown-ups are taking over now." That was right before (or was it after?) they made up that story about the W's missing on their keyboards.<BR/><BR/>Well, this <B>has</B> been pleasant. Please send me an autographed copy of your book as soon as you translate it into Sanskrit and Japanese.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164042115408174182006-11-20T12:01:00.000-05:002006-11-20T12:01:00.000-05:00Pretty good liberal talking points, Shitrock - typ...Pretty good liberal talking points, Shitrock - typical.<BR/><BR/>Now, an economic primer. The Fed has used a monetary policy of using the interest rate to control inflation. The failed presidency of Jimmy Carter proved to both parties that inflation is the worst possible occurence in our market economy. Reagan fixed that, coupled with lowering the top tax rates down from 70%.<BR/><BR/>The Fed has raised interest rates over the past 12 months because the economy was traveling so fast, in an effrot to curb inflation. It worked.<BR/><BR/>The Fed indicated last week that they are holding interest rates at the current level, and will lower if inflation is truly in check.<BR/><BR/>The final lesson today, grasshopper, is to realize the old addage that "no tree grows to the sky." The economy will never continue to climb forever, because it will over-heat. In the 1920's, economists around the globe did not realize this phenomenom, and the Great Depression occured. Since then, we have had recessions of various dgrees of severity, and they are truly a cleansing effect on the ecnomoy.<BR/><BR/>GW inherited the last recession cycle, which started before he entered office. This was the natural occurence. Couple this with 9/11 and the potential crippling effect on the stock market, and the US economy recovered nicely because of the tax cuts. <BR/><BR/>Finally, add some background on your middle class strain argument. Throwing out numbers with no back-up does nothing to bolster the claim.<BR/><BR/>Keep the heavy thinking to us grown-ups. Plagiarizing Democrat talking points from election pamphlets does not an intelligent point make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1164027152493050422006-11-20T07:52:00.000-05:002006-11-20T07:52:00.000-05:00Go John!!!!Go John!!!!Ima Undercoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00542834320265531669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1163989043050781872006-11-19T21:17:00.000-05:002006-11-19T21:17:00.000-05:00Ooooh...I want to be John's friend. =DOoooh...<BR/><BR/>I want to be John's friend. =DJustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527850321812906680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1163980354282447322006-11-19T18:52:00.000-05:002006-11-19T18:52:00.000-05:00Pardon my idiocy for quoting the United States Con...Pardon my idiocy for quoting the United States Constitution. Anon, why do you hate the Constitution? (:^)}<BR/><BR/>My feelings about the Democrats have nothing to do with anything, but just to help you prevent making an ass of yourself <B>again</B>, know that I have almost as much contempt for them as for the Rapepublicans. Almost.<BR/><BR/>As for the economy, you come closer to being right. Don't misunderstand and get excited -- you're wrong in general, but you're actually right about a couple of things. I'm tempted to ask you to prove your points just for giggles, but I know you won't; so I'll just give our readers the facts (you can ignore them):<BR/><BR/>Interest rates are down? Compared to when? The Discount Rate is higher than it was this time last year, the year before that, and the year before that. Is is also higher than it was in the 6th year of the Clinton administration. <BR/><BR/>The unemployment rate is also higher than it was in the 6th year of the Clinton administration. But you are correct in saying it is down -- when compared to Bush's disasterous first term. (In fact, all of your comparitives are in relation to horrendous performance of the Bush first term when he started his campaign to eviscerate the middle class.)<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, while employment may be "improving," median household income is falling. It's down 5.9% since 2000, while productivity is up. What this means is that the big corporations are paying less and getting more. That's why I call it the corporate economy.<BR/><BR/>While income drops, health care and energy costs soar. If you call this a good economy, you're either quite wealth, quite stupid, or a member of the Bush administration. (Oh, I already said wealthy and stupid. Sorry for the redundancy.) <BR/><BR/>Companies are hiring. Sure, and the jobs they're hiring for are of the "you want fries with that" variety.<BR/><BR/>As for raising taxes, yeah, I think so. I guess you would say a better idea would be to bankrupt your grandkids to pay for Bush's buddy's yachts and for neocon wars. But then, caring about the future is just another example of my idiocy.Schmuck Shitrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991317846707150587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1163972728059869882006-11-19T16:45:00.000-05:002006-11-19T16:45:00.000-05:00John, you're an idiot. First off, get it through ...John, you're an idiot. First off, get it through your head that it's a Democrat house and senate now. Or, did you forget? Oh wait! I know, you just don't want your beloved Democrats to be resonsible for whatever actions they take, right? You need to pin the blame, in typical liberal form.<BR/><BR/>By the way, this "Corporate Economy" that you speak of. Interest rates are down. People are buying. Companies are hiring. The unemployment rates are way down, more than they have been in years. Yep, this economy sucks.<BR/><BR/>So Mr. Smart-Shit, what options from your Marxist play book would you pick to fix what aint even broke?<BR/><BR/>I know! Raise taxes! <BR/><BR/>Cha-ching!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1163963623005839882006-11-19T14:13:00.000-05:002006-11-19T14:13:00.000-05:00The Constitution of the United States specifies th...The Constitution of the United States specifies that excecutive power resides in the President. For those of you who are not in touch with things political (and I'm sorry to say this seems to be you, Anon), this means that he and Jesus are still in charge in this country.<BR/><BR/>That means it's still Mr. Bush's war, Mr. Bush's corporate economy, Mr. Bush's abuse of power.<BR/><BR/>It looks to me as though the House, being the most political branch, will have a lot to say about our national direction, sure. The Senate may actually do its job now and obstruct some his more egregious outrages. And there will be a lot of legislation for him to veto over the next two years. But Mr. Bush is still Tha Man.<BR/><BR/>Until 2009, when Tha Man may actually be Tha Woman.Schmuck Shitrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991317846707150587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1163948071711460222006-11-19T09:54:00.000-05:002006-11-19T09:54:00.000-05:00David, are you ever going to move forward? Or do ...David, are you ever going to move forward? Or do you take delight in looking backwards all the time? The Republicans lost, palsy. You guys are in charge! Move forward already! Quit with the whining already, you guys won, remember? <BR/><BR/>You won and you still are whining. Does anything please you?<BR/><BR/>Now that the Democrats are in charge, why don't you start talking about the big Democrat plan for America. How about it, David?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com