Obama just officially warn in as US President for a second term, so what can we expect to see in the next 46 1/2 months ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21106159 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21106159)
Quote
Inauguration Day: Obama sworn in for second term
Barack Obama has officially been sworn in for his second term as US president in a small ceremony at the White House.
Although the US Constitution requires the oath of office to be taken by noon on 20 January, that falls on a Sunday so the public inauguration will take place on Monday.
Mr Obama took his official oath in the White House's Blue Room.
The public ceremony with pomp and circumstance will follow on Monday.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Mr Obama, witnessed by First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Sasha and Malia as well as some family members and reporters.
Resting his hand on a bible used for many years by his wife's family, Mr Obama vowed "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
He will repeat those words during Monday's public inauguration, in which he will set out his plans for the next four years.
Vice-President Joe Biden was sworn in for a second term at a small ceremony at his official residence earlier on Sunday morning.
The 70-year-old will also repeat his oath publicly on Monday.
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
Obama just officially warn in as US President for a second term, so what can we expect to see in the next 46 1/2 months ?
A never ending sequence of budget crises that come down to the midnight hour and which all are resolved by keeping taxes low and spending high.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 12:27:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
Obama just officially warn in as US President for a second term, so what can we expect to see in the next 46 1/2 months ?
A never ending sequence of budget crises that come down to the midnight hour and which all are resolved by keeping taxes low and spending high.
Well that's the Republican agenda, but what of Obama's ?
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2013, 12:41:03 PM
Well that's the Republican agenda, but what of Obama's ?
No it's not.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
He spent all his rhetorical firepower in the first term on fatcats and millionaires paying their fair share. That appears to be played out.
And it all ended in a 0-0 tie, anyway.
So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.
The amount of racist emails in my inboxes will be up 100%.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 12:52:00 PM
And it all ended in a 0-0 tie, anyway.
6-0 Barry.
Nah. Taxes going up a bit for Romneynaires who won't miss it anyway is small potatoes compared to the total lack of financial industry regulatory enforcement and reform. On that, the Choom Gang has wiffed 100%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 01:48:50 PM
Nah. Taxes going up a bit for Romneynaires who won't miss it anyway is small potatoes compared to the total lack of financial industry regulatory enforcement and reform. On that, the Choom Gang has wiffed 100%.
What a weird thing to say.
Would you mind sharing what your principle sources of news/information are? I peek at my dad's Progressive, Mother Jones, and Soujourners once in a while, read the NYT Sunday editorials faithfully, and catch a couple minutes of the political comedy guys each week, all so I can understand the leftist world view better, but sometimes you post stuff that makes me think we're living in alternate realities.
Also a weird segueway from the issue of taxing the rich.
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.
The argument against income inequality is a matter of degrees. I haven't even encountered anyone not goofy who was serious about eliminating income inequality as opposed to reducing it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 02:06:40 PM
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.
No way you thought that. :o
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2013, 12:41:03 PM
Well that's the Republican agenda, but what of Obama's ?
No it's not.
That seemed to be the Republican agenda for the Bush administration. Why should it be different, now?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 02:06:40 PM
What a weird thing to say.
Would you mind sharing what your principle sources of news/information are? I peek at my dad's Progressive, Mother Jones, and Soujourners once in a while, read the NYT Sunday editorials faithfully, and catch a couple minutes of the political comedy guys each week, all so I can understand the leftist world view better, but sometimes you post stuff that makes me think we're living in alternate realities.
Could also be that I don't give a flying squirrel's fuck anymore, too.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 02:34:28 PM
No way you thought that. :o
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 02:37:22 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
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?" :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 03:10:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
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?" :huh:
Meh, peanuts is still peanuts. It's all still small ball compared to what needs to be done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 02:37:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 02:34:28 PM
No way you thought that. :o
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.
:lol: Good one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 03:53:39 PM
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?"
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2013, 04:42:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on January 20, 2013, 05:09:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
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.
:lol:
Exhibit A of what? I've been moaning about this for ages because I normally agree with them and I get annoyed at American liberal writers :lol:
My view of many liberal writers and hosts is that they don't want to persuade, they want to enjoy being right - it's a problem with some lefty campaigners in this country too. The impression I get is that they view conservatives as if they're always operating in bad faith, they're being conned by Fox News and talk radio, or they're deluded. There's not really much respect or tolerance for a different perspective - they're just wrong, and laughably so. They don't make arguments, they make inside jokes.
As I say I think this was most clear during the healthcare debate.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
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.
:lol: You haven't even read the fucking article pinhead.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 05:12:10 PM
Exhibit A of what?
"Both sides are to blame" fallacy. I'm sure there are liberals who are less open-minded than others, you get a lot of variance among tens of millions of people. It's also the case that one side's extremism radicalizes the other side, it's a law of nature. However, to equate the close-mindedness of movements as a whole is just nutty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 05:14:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
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.
:lol: You haven't even read the fucking article pinhead.
I didn't need to. In the last part of the quote, you ruled out the possibility of that argument having merit outright.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 03:53:39 PM
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?"
I don't know.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
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.
I think it's a mistake to consider Stewart or Colbert as primarily liberal political activists or equivalents of Limbaugh. People tune into Comedy Central to laugh at things. People tune into the bloc of talk radio to have their opinions reaffirmed.
But isn't that exactly what conservatives say about Limbaugh and most other talk radio hosts? Primarily they're entertainers and they're funny so they're excluded. Though as I say I don't think Stewart and Colbert are that bad - I think Sorkin's programs, as Yi says, Maher and other writers and hosts are more of a problem.
I agree with not blaming both sides for the sake of it, but on the issue of tone I think both sides are to blame.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
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.
I think it's a mistake to consider Stewart or Colbert as primarily liberal political activists or equivalents of Limbaugh. People tune into Comedy Central to laugh at things. People tune into the bloc of talk radio to have their opinions reaffirmed.
I disagree. It's a fig leaf they use, but both of them are very much political commentators. The difference between Stewart/Colbert and Limbaugh is that humor acts as an escape valve, while ceaseless propaganda acts like a radicalizing force. This is where lack of sense of humor is serving conservatives well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 05:33:25 PM
But isn't that exactly what conservatives say about Limbaugh and most other talk radio hosts? Primarily they're entertainers and they're funny so they're excluded. Though as I say I don't think Stewart and Colbert are that bad - I think Sorkin's programs, as Yi says, Maher and other writers and hosts are more of a problem.
I agree with not blaming both sides for the sake of it, but on the issue of tone I think both sides are to blame.
They say that when they want to discourage people from thinking they have much influence on Republicans, or when those guys say something other republicans want to publicly distance themselves from, but lets be honest. They aren't listening to three hours of Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh raving because it's funny. Talk radio has been around for a long time, though it never originated out of comedy. It's much closer to commentary or opinion columns in the paper. They might have funny bits in it, but on the whole they are talk about what they feel are serious issues and they do so earnestly. When the GOP took the House back in 1994 politicians were publicly thanking him and made him an honorary member of Congress. I don't recall them making Jon Stewart an honorary member of Congress.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 05:17:57 PM
I didn't need to. In the last part of the quote, you ruled out the possibility of that argument having merit outright.
That's a retarded line of reasoning. At some point you have to evaluate the arguments provided and come to a conclusion. Are you still waiting for "possible" arguments before you make up your mind about Creationism or the Great Global Warming Hoax?
You're also off on your strawman of "both are equally bad." I never said the Jon Stewart phenomenon makes Democrats just as bad as Republicans and neither did Shelf. I'm starting with the premise that public discourse is best served when choices are argued on the merits, and anything that undermines that is a negative outcome.
He's also in the Hall of Great Missourians or whatever it's called. That must toast your marshmallows.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 06:05:35 PM
That's a retarded line of reasoning. At some point you have to evaluate the arguments provided and come to a conclusion. Are you still waiting for "possible" arguments before you make up your mind about Creationism or the Great Global Warming Hoax?
Interesting examples, because for me those two are nothing to do with evaluating arguments. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of science to do that in either case. I just believe an overwhelming, credible scientific consensus.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2013, 06:10:07 PM
He's also in the Hall of Great Missourians or whatever it's called. That must toast your marshmallows.
I think he has a bust at the capital. Sterling Price as well, and he was a traitor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 03:18:28 PM
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.
Most people who want reform agree broadly on what it should look like - which helps. Obama's proposals from last term were very similar to what W proposed. They're also very similar to what Rubio's currently going around proposing, which Obama's welcomed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2013, 06:05:35 PM
That's a retarded line of reasoning. At some point you have to evaluate the arguments provided and come to a conclusion. Are you still waiting for "possible" arguments before you make up your mind about Creationism or the Great Global Warming Hoax?
Interesting examples, because for me those two are nothing to do with evaluating arguments. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of science to do that in either case. I just believe an overwhelming, credible scientific consensus.
It does not require serious scientific credentials to evaluate creationism and come to the conclusion it's rubbish, S.
The extent of anthropogenic climate change probably does, but you don't need to know a great of science to understand what increased CO2 levels do.
Quote
Although the US Constitution requires the oath of office to be taken by noon on 20 January, that falls on a Sunday so the public inauguration will take place on Monday.
OMFG! SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING! OBAMA-HITLER ISN'T HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE CONSTITUTION! JUST YOU WATCH!
He was sworn in on Sunday, they are doing a second public ceremony today.
Does anybody call Hannity an entertainer? Cause his show's more skewed than any of the liberal comedians mentioned, and it's supposedly "serious" news.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2013, 09:02:48 AM
Does anybody call Hannity an entertainer? Cause his show's more skewed than any of the liberal comedians mentioned, and it's supposedly "serious" news.
I do. I call Rush an entertainer as well. I'll listen to both, but if neither are particularly entertaining I'll switch to something else.
Reverend Manning said to boycott the illegal inauguration of the Usurper in Chief.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2013, 09:02:48 AM
Does anybody call Hannity an entertainer? Cause his show's more skewed than any of the liberal comedians mentioned, and it's supposedly "serious" news.
I hope not. He's just a soul dead party hack :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 05:12:10 PM
Exhibit A of what? I've been moaning about this for ages because I normally agree with them and I get annoyed at American liberal writers :lol:
My view of many liberal writers and hosts is that they don't want to persuade, they want to enjoy being right - it's a problem with some lefty campaigners in this country too. The impression I get is that they view conservatives as if they're always operating in bad faith, they're being conned by Fox News and talk radio, or they're deluded. There's not really much respect or tolerance for a different perspective - they're just wrong, and laughably so. They don't make arguments, they make inside jokes.
Don't know what you are watching or who you are listening to.
Exhibit A in the false equivalency argument is that right after Stiglitz published his piece, Paul Krugman criticized it in his blog. So on one of the biggest economic issues in terms of political valence, the two leading liberal pundits are disgareeing and advancing reasoned arguments.
It helps that the two leading left-wing economic pundits are at the very top of their profession. The comparison to the fatuous clowns and talentless hacks paraded forth on Fox or CNBC could not be more glaring. Of course there do exist conservative economists that are at the Stiglitz/Krugman level but tend to be marginalized unless they play to the fantasists gallery. So Arthur Laffer still gets more air time than Greg Mankiw because the latter betrayed the True Faith by advocating for a carbon tax.
Medgar Evers' widow, Chuck Shumer, and the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
What a Star-Spangled Fuck You to the South.
That choir was superb.
Also what the fuck is Scalia wearing :blink:
Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush Limbaugh today. That dude is flippin' hilarious.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 21, 2013, 11:42:38 AM
Medgar Evers' widow, Chuck Shumer, and the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
What a Star-Spangled Fuck You to the South.
Damn, missed that. I'm sure Chuckie has a wonderful singing voice :bleeding:
On this whole stupid versus stupid discussion I thought two posts from my facebook feed I read:
QuoteCorporate "personhood," as it pertains to elections, is a plutocratic theft of democracy.
Capitalism itself is a failed experiment, amoral and sociopathic, bound always and inexorably to lead to oligarchic exploitation of labor with more and more of the pie being appropriated by an ever shrinking, parasitic overclass. Marx was right. The Bolshies were wrong to try to force it, but capitalism, at least unbounded capitalism, will have to end.
Napoleon said that religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. I think we need to eradicate the completely false axiom that people have some kind of unlimited right to acquisition without responsibility because religion is starting to crack.
And then:
QuoteProbably shouldn't post this on Facebook, but I think my concern/paranoia, has reached a new level. A military helicopter just circled my apt complex. Found it odd, and it has thrown me into a cleaning, sharpening, and loading frenzy.
Now, the second post is quite crazy, but I think both are good examples of the point I want to make. The vast majority of the people on the left or right are stupid and have no critical thinking ability. They slavishly support policies out of clannish love of what they see as "their team."
Now, one step up from that you have the professional pundits whose job it is to comment on our society. On the left, the vast majority twist every situation to make it look like conservatives are being unreasonable and frame everything as though they have a monopoly on the right answers and that conservatives are stupid to think otherwise. Just as an example over 70% of Americans were recently shown in a poll to want a reduction in government spending, but the Democrats have portrayed any attempts by the Republicans to get any spending cuts negatively and have dismissed the Republicans as having any legitimate mandate to reduce spending.
On the conservative side, it's basically the same thing. Liberal ideas are not presented fairly but in a very one sided manner. These two disparate punditry groups are not writing to persuade, they are writing to reinforce what the two idiot groups exemplified by my facebook posts represent, which is most people on the left and most people on the right. Morons who just want to read stuff that reinforces what they've already been lead to believe based on what their "team" supports.
A very small sliver on both sides are sane, reasonable people who discuss both sides of the issue. At the politician-level and pundit level I'll say this, right now the Republicans have a smaller sliver of "reasonable" representation in the public eye than the Democrats, but we're arguing about the thin slivers of both sides. The truth is 99% of Americans are idiots who don't understand even a single issue they have an opinion on.
Who the hell is this rambling douche?
Bring back the hottie who sang My Country Tis of Thee
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 21, 2013, 12:19:52 PM
Now, the second post is quite crazy, but I think both are good examples of the point I want to make. The vast majority of the people on the left or right are stupid and have no critical thinking ability. They slavishly support policies out of clannish love of what they see as "their team."
Thank you for not using the word "tribe" :)
I caught some of Obama's speech in the car earlier. Sounded good.
A grad school buddy of mine had a good line. We were talking about The Economist and he said they still think that ideas matter.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2013, 12:23:25 PM
Who the hell is this rambling douche?
It's the poem. I do always think Allen Ginsberg really has a lot to answer for in contemporary American poetry <_<
It was terrible! :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2013, 12:08:16 PM
Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush Limbaugh today. That dude is flippin' hilarious.
I pretty frequently disagree with Steyn (a Canadian by the way) but I typically quite enjoy his writings.
I wonder if Limbaugh took the day off to honor Dr. King. :)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 21, 2013, 12:19:52 PM
QuoteCorporate "personhood," as it pertains to elections, is a plutocratic theft of democracy.
Capitalism itself is a failed experiment, amoral and sociopathic, bound always and inexorably to lead to oligarchic exploitation of labor with more and more of the pie being appropriated by an ever shrinking, parasitic overclass. Marx was right. The Bolshies were wrong to try to force it, but capitalism, at least unbounded capitalism, will have to end.
Napoleon said that religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. I think we need to eradicate the completely false axiom that people have some kind of unlimited right to acquisition without responsibility because religion is starting to crack.
Translation: The Securities and Exchange Commission needs more Jesuit investigators.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2013, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 05:12:10 PM
Exhibit A of what? I've been moaning about this for ages because I normally agree with them and I get annoyed at American liberal writers :lol:
My view of many liberal writers and hosts is that they don't want to persuade, they want to enjoy being right - it's a problem with some lefty campaigners in this country too. The impression I get is that they view conservatives as if they're always operating in bad faith, they're being conned by Fox News and talk radio, or they're deluded. There's not really much respect or tolerance for a different perspective - they're just wrong, and laughably so. They don't make arguments, they make inside jokes.
Don't know what you are watching or who you are listening to.
Exhibit A in the false equivalency argument is that right after Stiglitz published his piece, Paul Krugman criticized it in his blog. So on one of the biggest economic issues in terms of political valence, the two leading liberal pundits are disgareeing and advancing reasoned arguments.
It helps that the two leading left-wing economic pundits are at the very top of their profession. The comparison to the fatuous clowns and talentless hacks paraded forth on Fox or CNBC could not be more glaring. Of course there do exist conservative economists that are at the Stiglitz/Krugman level but tend to be marginalized unless they play to the fantasists gallery. So Arthur Laffer still gets more air time than Greg Mankiw because the latter betrayed the True Faith by advocating for a carbon tax.
Two things that Krugman has been pointing out that I fully agree with is that (paraphrasing greatly) 1)you can tell who is arguing in at least something reasonably approaching good faith by whether they adjust their theoretical frameworks and recommendations for action in response to actual evidence, and any economists on the right have been avoiding doing this for years now, and 2)the self-righteous "center," and the neutral-to-a-fault media, have been enabling this for a very long time, by framing every disagreement as between two equally valid (and often equally despised) opinions, even when one "opinion" is based on falsities or lies and the other on facts and observable evidence.
Also (apropos of nothing), it wa nice to see Krugman finally join the late 20th century with his posts on automation. Good job! :thumbsup:
Quote from: YiA grad school buddy of mine had a good line. We were talking about The Economist and he said they still think that ideas matter.
Pithy, but can you elaborate?
Quote from: Caliga on January 21, 2013, 12:40:23 PM
I wonder if Limbaugh took the day off to honor Dr. King. :)
Yes.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
Two things that Krugman has been pointing out that I fully agree with is that (paraphrasing greatly) 1)you can tell who is arguing in at least something reasonably approaching good faith by whether they adjust their theoretical frameworks and recommendations for action in response to actual evidence, and any economists on the right have been avoiding doing this for years now, and 2)the self-righteous "center," and the neutral-to-a-fault media, have been enabling this for a very long time, by framing every disagreement as between two equally valid (and often equally despised) opinions, even when one "opinion" is based on falsities or lies and the other on facts and observable evidence.
Who and what the hell are you talking about? :huh:
QuoteQuote from: YiA grad school buddy of mine had a good line. We were talking about The Economist and he said they still think that ideas matter.
Pithy, but can you elaborate?
He meant that most media is focused on the horse race/popularity contest aspect of politics, whereas magazines like The Economist actually evaluate policy.
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
Obama just officially warn in as US President for a second term,
Freudian slip :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
He meant that most media is focused on the horse race/popularity contest aspect of politics, whereas magazines like The Economist actually evaluate policy.
The Economist is a tweener. They don't have the access and investigative types to provide effective inside dope but they also are too pithy and lack the horses for serious analytical takes. They are still pretty good at issue spotting I guess.
Could the president swear on the Quran or the US Constitution or does it have to be the Bible?
Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2013, 01:34:29 PM
Could the president swear on the Quran
I wish he would do that, just to see the reaction. :D
Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2013, 01:34:29 PM
Could the president swear on the Quran or the US Constitution or does it have to be the Bible?
He could.
He can swear in on anything, I think one swore in on a book of laws. He also can swear in on nothing at all. He also doesn't have to have a public swearing in, the swearing in he did with Chief Justice Roberts on Sunday would have been sufficient and he could have chosen not to have a public inauguration ceremony at all.
Several of the ceremonial things the President does are totally optional. He also could for example, just deliver his State of the Union report as a piece of paper to the Congress. There is no requirement he gives a speech.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
Two things that Krugman has been pointing out that I fully agree with is that (paraphrasing greatly) 1)you can tell who is arguing in at least something reasonably approaching good faith by whether they adjust their theoretical frameworks and recommendations for action in response to actual evidence, and any economists on the right have been avoiding doing this for years now, and 2)the self-righteous "center," and the neutral-to-a-fault media, have been enabling this for a very long time, by framing every disagreement as between two equally valid (and often equally despised) opinions, even when one "opinion" is based on falsities or lies and the other on facts and observable evidence.
Who and what the hell are you talking about? :huh:
The Austrian/Austerian people. I should know more names but I don't off the top of my head, and feel disinclined to research it now--did Alesina and/or Ardagna recant on their flawed findings that contractionary policy wasn't contractionary? Also, name a deficit hawk economist or one who's been warning of an inflationary period that has yet to materialize, and that's to whom I refer.
Anyway, I'll get you next time, Gadget.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 21, 2013, 01:52:20 PM
He can swear in on anything, I think one swore in on a book of laws. He also can swear in on nothing at all. He also doesn't have to have a public swearing in, the swearing in he did with Chief Justice Roberts on Sunday would have been sufficient and he could have chosen not to have a public inauguration ceremony at all.
Several of the ceremonial things the President does are totally optional. He also could for example, just deliver his State of the Union report as a piece of paper to the Congress. There is no requirement he gives a speech.
That would be hilarious. Everybody is waiting for a big speech and he just sends an e-mail to all members of Congress and cc's the press corps. Maybe David Cameron should do that for his EU speech.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 21, 2013, 01:52:20 PM
He also could for example, just deliver his State of the Union report as a piece of paper to the Congress. There is no requirement he gives a speech.
Just once, I'd like to see a President do that. Just mail it to them. After all, all it says is "from time to time".
But the SotU isn't simply for Congress anymore, and hasn't been for a long time.
I'm not hearing enough about Michelle's new hair :mellow:
Hopefully tonight when she's wearing her gown her arms will get the press they richly deserve.
The SotU timing is weird. I think a long time ago it was less formalized, but now it's generally accepted a SotU given in January/February of a given year is "for" the prior year. So in January 1993 technically George H.W. Bush should have given a State of the Union address and not Bill Clinton. Instead I don't believe Bush gave one at all, or even sent a report. In fact I don't think Reagan or Clinton or Bush II did in the final January of their Presidencies either.
In 1993 Clinton gave a speech to a joint session of Congress early in his term, but it was not a State of the Union address, and his first State of the Union was given in January of '94.
Carter I think actually mailed a written address in January of '80, but it looks like other outgoing Presidents have just not done one at all, probably under the recognition that the Constitution doesn't require it and it is politically irrelevant.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/president-obamas-second-inaugural-as-heard-by-conspiracy-theorists-and-haters/266853/
QuotePresident Obama's Second Inaugural, as Heard By Conspiracy Theorists and Haters
We gather here today not just to celebrate the machinery of our Republic and reaffirm the continuing story of our country, but to celebrate me. We are here because we have chosen fear over hope. Conflict and discord over unity of purpose. Division and class warfare over reconciliation and quiet consent. Perhaps it's appropriate that today is Martin Luther King Day. In observance of this grand day, I took care to make sure that I was sworn in on Malcolm X's Koran just moments ago.
First, I just want to take a moment to thank all of the foreign campaign donors, the Saudi princes, and the hundreds of thousands of Acorn employees and Occupy Wall Street volunteers it took to commit the widespread voter fraud that won me this second term. And to the majority who voted against me and were able to produce ID: I may not have won your vote last year, but with malice toward most and government-funded charity for all, I will be your president, too.
When I stood before you to take this oath four years ago, I did so in a time of great economic stress at home and deadly perils abroad. Thanks to my administration's socialist domestic policies and a strategy of timid appeasement abroad, we have turned the corner, and our nation is once again poised for our next great catastrophe. My communist tutors could have never imagined that I would preside over a country with the Dow sitting at 13,000 and corporate profits at an all-time high: perfect camouflage for the economic crisis I will use to enact the unconstitutional takeover that will lead to my inevitable third term. A third term where I will put my limitless ambition and presidential legacy aside, and bring about the total destruction of America.
Though this is contrary to my intentions and actions, America appears to be astride the world once again. We have successfully blocked Palestinian statehood, despite our true Muslim sympathies. Our newly gay armies have left the country of Iraq. We have successfully faked the death of Osama Bin Laden. Iran is about to obtain the bomb we will use against Israel. The CIA, which trained me so well for my current mission, has helped to prop up Muslim extremist governments in Yemen, Libya, Egypt, and -- soon -- Syria. With these objectives met and with 100 million Muslims destined for entry into the U.S., we will finally be one step closer to establishing Sharia Law within our burgeoning Caliphate. And, Inshallah, with the assistance of One World Government U.N. troops and your ambivalence, we will finally take our next Great Leap Forward. While the liberation theology that governs my life runs in contrast to what I was taught at madrassa, I will not let it stop me from traveling around the world on 200-million-dollar trips to apologize for the country. And though I will continue to expand the United States' empire into the South Pacific to counter China, I will not forget my anti-colonialist roots.
(PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE)
Though we will no doubt be able to lower the price of gas through our holy brothers at OPEC, with the help of the global climate change hoax we will still push for clean energy. And once my armed civilian police force has confiscated every gun and every American is tagged, tracked, and located, we will institute a new Cash for Clunkers program. Every car made before 2008 will be seized and replaced, free of charge, with a Union-made Chevy Volt. After this is accomplished, we will need a fleet of Solyndra-built domestic Predator drones to patrol the skies. Anyone who drives over the nationally mandated 45 mile per hour speed limit will be fired upon and eliminated. We will let the nation know that we will build any debt, pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, tax any carbon, and properly inflate any tire. There is no bald eagle that we will not sacrifice upon the propellers of our wind turbines.
(PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE)
Our renewed commitment to clean energy must of course be tempered by our relentless need for fossil fuels. That's the reason I will give when I authorize the Keystone pipeline. Not just because it will create jobs, but it will provide important cover for that Canada to Mexico superhighway we've been trying to build.
With our nation secure and our energy clean we can then begin the work of forcible gay marriage. We will let no heterosexual relationship stand in the way of our much more fabulous future. No child who survives their forced abortion will be left un-indoctrinated by their local teachers union. All citizens will be raised as secular atheists. College will be provided gratis for these children. Of course, all of this investment in and control of each person will be closely monitored by our death panels. The question we have continually asked ourselves is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works hard enough to truly control the lives of its citizens, enslave its young to hedonism and legalized marijuana, force its elderly into a comfortable subjugation, and create, from cradle to grave, dependency on government.
Some may ask, "Why invest so much time and money into each citizen's life just to place them at the mercy of death panels?" And the answer to that is this -- as evidenced by the sinister realities that exist within the minds of its citizens, Americans are just too dangerous to be left to their own devices. So, America, I say to you: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.
Although my administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other in history, we must do more to make America a more inclusive state. That is why after granting amnesty, Obama phones, and driver's licenses to every undocumented immigrant that is already here, my administration will open up the borders without conditions. Every new entry will be registered and forced to vote by the New Black Panther Party. And I urge them to report to their new local government Gift Depot to claim their free gifts. In addition, Puerto Rico must be admitted immediately as the 58th state. Though demographic shifts make this electorally unnecessary, we must do all that we can to make this country less white.
America is a beautiful country where anything is possible. And when I say "anything," I mean anything -- no matter how insane or contradictory -- can be real, if only in your mind. These realities can only take hold within the vacuum of your brave, irrational dreams. In your dreams, there is no Churchill bust we won't deport. No monthly jobs report we will not manipulate. No poll number that is not worth skewing. No conservative blogger too irrelevant to murder. No Cabinet official too important or ambitious to silence in order to hide The Truth about Benghazi. There is no national tragedy or crisis we won't stage to exploit.
Only in this America can flag pins can be melted down and used for fuel in the rebuilt UFOs that crashed in Roswell. In this America, all will be forbidden from placing their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance to the government that staged the coup against John F. Kennedy. Only in this America could we take the time and commit the effort to fake the moon landing. In this America, Bill Ayers will ghostwrite the official Agenda 21 manifesto. Only in this America could the inept Bush administration, like FDR's before them with Pearl Harbor, execute a false flag terrorist attack in broad daylight and live on TV, and convince the world that it was committed by Muslim fundamentalists who would later install their own president.
In this America it is not just the duty of every citizen to vote and volunteer, but to actively believe in whatever they want as an expression of the freedom their country has bestowed upon them. A country where, for me, foreign birth is no impediment to joining the CIA, teleporting to Mars, becoming a gay, socialist, Muslim empowered by a cabal of Jewish media-controlling capitalists to institute a techno-aged internationalist, atheistic hellscape of wealth redistribution. In this America all of that and more is possible, however unlikely. But I can't do this alone, America. I can only do this if you believe.
Thank you.
God damn you. And may God damn the United States of America
(ROARING APPLAUSE)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 21, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
Carter I think actually mailed a written address in January of '80,
It was actually January '81's SotU that he mailed in as a lame duck. SotU'80 was the Carter Doctrine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Who and what the hell are you talking about? :huh:
I assume the folks that warned that the Fed extraordinary measures would prompt hyperinflation.
Meh, the inaugural review of the troops is pretty lame compared to Bastille Day, or the old Red Square reviews.
Pretty cool to have the colonial militia and Continental Army in their throwback jerseys, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 21, 2013, 03:16:43 PM
Meh, the inaugural review of the troops is pretty lame compared to Bastille Day, or the old Red Square reviews.
Pretty cool to have the colonial militia and Continental Army in their throwback jerseys, though.
Yep. Don't tread on me.
Would you say the colonial militia looked well-regulated? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 03:38:19 PM
Would you say the colonial militia looked well-regulated? :hmm:
Incredibly well-regulated. They did a slow march then a half-step, then back to full forward to the fifes and drums.
Man, Obama's aged over the last four years.
He's going to look like Morgan Freeman by the time he leaves office.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2013, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 05:12:10 PM
Exhibit A of what? I've been moaning about this for ages because I normally agree with them and I get annoyed at American liberal writers :lol:
My view of many liberal writers and hosts is that they don't want to persuade, they want to enjoy being right - it's a problem with some lefty campaigners in this country too. The impression I get is that they view conservatives as if they're always operating in bad faith, they're being conned by Fox News and talk radio, or they're deluded. There's not really much respect or tolerance for a different perspective - they're just wrong, and laughably so. They don't make arguments, they make inside jokes.
Don't know what you are watching or who you are listening to.
Exhibit A in the false equivalency argument is that right after Stiglitz published his piece, Paul Krugman criticized it in his blog. So on one of the biggest economic issues in terms of political valence, the two leading liberal pundits are disgareeing and advancing reasoned arguments.
It helps that the two leading left-wing economic pundits are at the very top of their profession. The comparison to the fatuous clowns and talentless hacks paraded forth on Fox or CNBC could not be more glaring. Of course there do exist conservative economists that are at the Stiglitz/Krugman level but tend to be marginalized unless they play to the fantasists gallery. So Arthur Laffer still gets more air time than Greg Mankiw because the latter betrayed the True Faith by advocating for a carbon tax.
Where do you put Steven Landsburg on your continuum?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2013, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Who and what the hell are you talking about? :huh:
I assume the folks that warned that the Fed extraordinary measures would prompt hyperinflation.
Yes. Though I can't really name any of them off the top of my head.
Quote from: Scipio on January 21, 2013, 07:59:59 PM
Where do you put Steven Landsburg on your continuum?
Is he even a serious economist? He strikes me as a pop economist who often stumbles upon counter-intuitive results, mainly due to ignoring simpler and obvious answers.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on January 21, 2013, 07:59:59 PM
Where do you put Steven Landsburg on your continuum?
Is he even a serious economist? He strikes me as a pop economist who often stumbles upon counter-intuitive results, mainly due to ignoring simpler and obvious answers.
Let me guess, some crazy libertarian?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on January 21, 2013, 07:59:59 PM
Where do you put Steven Landsburg on your continuum?
Is he even a serious economist? He strikes me as a pop economist who often stumbles upon counter-intuitive results, mainly due to ignoring simpler and obvious answers.
Let me guess, some crazy libertarian?
:yes:
Well those are the only ones for Skip, so it's not hard to guess.
I had to use his microeconomics textbook when studying for an actuarial exam back in the day, which is how I originally became aware of this so-called economist. I remember reading some musings by him in some other book, pondering car safety.
He started off with the fact that car accident fatalities have remained steady over many decades, despite advances in car safety technology. He went on to conclude that as cars became safer, people started consuming more of reckless driving, which canceled out the advances. He then hypothesizes that car accident deaths could be minimized by installing a sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel, since people would then be reluctant to crash.
Of course, what he failed to take into account is that people are covering more miles than they did decades ago. By death-per-mile statistics, car accidents deaths have actually fallen precipitously, almost by a factor of ten when compared to 1940-ies. Anyone even remotely familiar with car safety would be at the very least aware of measuring car safety with such a statistic. However, Landsburg is too much of an unconventional thinker to use such common sense and basic knowledge in the field he opines on.
I do admit, I admire people who are completely insane like that. It take a very pure high-grade madness to come to those type of conclusions.
I wonder if aviation related deaths have dropped dramatically. I seem to recall there was alarming number of people who died in airplanes in the early 1940's.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
I wonder if aviation related deaths have dropped dramatically. I seem to recall there was alarming number of people who died in airplanes in the early 1940's.
:lol: I suppose they did.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2013, 08:29:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on January 21, 2013, 07:59:59 PM
Where do you put Steven Landsburg on your continuum?
Is he even a serious economist? He strikes me as a pop economist who often stumbles upon counter-intuitive results, mainly due to ignoring simpler and obvious answers.
Let me guess, some crazy libertarian?
IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND LOLWTF
Landsburg is a micro guy.
What, like under five foot?
:lol:
Don't laugh at that.
Calm down now.
Unusual to see Spiess as a champion of the little guy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2013, 09:02:40 PM
Unusual to see Spiess as a champion of the little guy.
:lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2013, 09:02:40 PM
Unusual to see Spiess as a champion of the little guy.
Yeah. Usually he comes up short on that account.
So where's the big GOP masturbatory thread over Hillary's testimony today?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
So where's the big GOP masturbatory thread over Hillary's testimony today?
Here:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9209.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9209.0.html)