"I did it" - Obama Sworn In For 2nd Term As US President.

[Admiral Yi]

That seemed to be the Republican agenda for the Bush administration.  Why should it be different, now?

I'm confused by your use of the conditional in the second sentence.  It is different now.

[Admiral Yi]

But really now, you don't have to read Mother Jones to see that the SEC or the Justice Department isn't sending anybody to jail over anything, or how HSBC can collude with the world's nastiest regimes and drug cartels to dodge the law, and they only get fined 4 weeks' worth of earnings. TOO BIG TOO JAIL.

And based on these two things you think an accurate characterization of Dodd-Frank and related changes is "a total lack of financial industry regulatory enforcement and reform?" 

[Sheilbh]

Apart from gun control Obama will not push any big domestic initiatives.  He spent all his rhetorical firepower in the first term on fatcats and millionaires paying their fair share.  That appears to be played out.

He'd be mad not to push immigration reform. Something deserved, that his party supports and that'll play merry hell with the GOP.

[Admiral Yi]

He'd be mad not to push immigration reform. Something deserved, that his party supports and that'll play merry hell with the GOP.

A not unreasonable prediction/suggestion.

Personally I think the pros and cons of amnesty (which is what most people mean when they say reform) got swamped out during the election by the political arguments (we can't win without more hispanic votes), and formally tabling it would create more pushback than you seem to be suggesting.  For example when Obama first proposed Citizenship for Bachelor of Arts the response was generally underwhelming.

But I'm going to go plant in front of the NFC game now so y'all will have to continue the discussion amongst yourselves.

[CountDeMoney]

But really now, you don't have to read Mother Jones to see that the SEC or the Justice Department isn't sending anybody to jail over anything, or how HSBC can collude with the world's nastiest regimes and drug cartels to dodge the law, and they only get fined 4 weeks' worth of earnings. TOO BIG TOO JAIL.

And based on these two things you think an accurate characterization of Dodd-Frank and related changes is "a total lack of financial industry regulatory enforcement and reform?" 

Meh, peanuts is still peanuts.  It's all still small ball compared to what needs to be done.

[Razgovory]

That seemed to be the Republican agenda for the Bush administration.  Why should it be different, now?

I'm confused by your use of the conditional in the second sentence.  It is different now.

I see no reason to think that, except for wishful thinking.

[DGuller]

No way you thought that.

Raz has the very legitimate excuse of being a bit nuts.

Stewart and Colbert are very entertaining, funny guys.  Maher much, much less so IMO.  But the price of this entertainment is an atrophying of the ability on the part of their demographic to construct anything resembling a coherent argument on the merits, and its replacement with vilification of anyone opposed to the in group's point of view.

  Good one.

[Sheilbh]

Stewart and Colbert are very entertaining, funny guys.  Maher much, much less so IMO.  But the price of this entertainment is an atrophying of the ability on the part of their demographic to construct anything resembling a coherent argument on the merits, and its replacement with vilification of anyone opposed to the in group's point of view.

Yep.

[Admiral Yi]

I see no reason to think that, except for wishful thinking.

"No reason" as in zero reason, or no reason analogous to Seedy's "total lack?"

[DGuller]

Stewart and Colbert are very entertaining, funny guys.  Maher much, much less so IMO.  But the price of this entertainment is an atrophying of the ability on the part of their demographic to construct anything resembling a coherent argument on the merits, and its replacement with vilification of anyone opposed to the in group's point of view.

Yep.

Give me a break, Shelf.  American conservatives these days are the most intellectually and morally regressive political force US has seen in many decades, and it's the Comedy Central audience that's unreasonable?  Get a grip.

[derspiess]

Stewart and Colbert are very entertaining, funny guys.  Maher much, much less so IMO.  But the price of this entertainment is an atrophying of the ability on the part of their demographic to construct anything resembling a coherent argument on the merits, and its replacement with vilification of anyone opposed to the in group's point of view.

Yep.

Give me a break, Shelf.  American conservatives these days are the most intellectually and morally regressive political force US has seen in many decades, and it's the Comedy Central audience that's unreasonable?  Get a grip.

Because you can't criticize both groups?  Looks like you're part of the problem.

[Sheilbh]

Give me a break, Shelf.  American conservatives these days are the most intellectually and morally regressive political force US has seen in many decades, and it's the Comedy Central audience that's unreasonable?  Get a grip.

I think there's a sneering, arrogant, self-righteous tone and unwillingness to consider another perspective in Sorkin-infused liberalism that's as much a problem as Limbaugh and the rest. I don't think Stewart or Colbert's that bad though, the blogs seem worse.

[DGuller]

Because you can't criticize both groups?  Looks like you're part of the problem.

Problem with criticizing both groups is that it almost always devolves to "both sides are to blame".  It's intellectually dishonest, let's the initial aggressor off the hook, and prevents a solution to the problem.  The truth of the matter is that conservatives are so much more responsible for the breakdown of political dialogue that it's not even remotely close.

Let's look at the quote what started it all in this thread in the first place:  "Speaking of the NYT, this week has an essay by Joseph Stiglitz on the economic arguments against income inequality.  Personally I think he did just about as well as a human can in advancing the argument.  In other words not at all well."  That's some open and beautiful mind right there.

[DGuller]

Give me a break, Shelf.  American conservatives these days are the most intellectually and morally regressive political force US has seen in many decades, and it's the Comedy Central audience that's unreasonable?  Get a grip.

I think there's a sneering, arrogant, self-righteous tone and unwillingness to consider another perspective in Sorkin-infused liberalism that's as much a problem as Limbaugh and the rest. I don't think Stewart or Colbert's that bad though, the blogs seem worse.

Exhibit A.  Sometimes you take your pseudo-intellectual shtick a bit too far, Shelf.

[Neil]

The truth of the matter is that conservatives are so much more responsible for the breakdown of political dialogue that it's not even remotely close.

It wasn't the conservatives who were attacking Nixon at every turn.