OCinBuffalo

First of all, you have to be kidding me about the military. They began their transformation in the 80s under Reagan. They had some hiccups = Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but most of those were from programs that were carry overs. The were told in no uncertain terms by Reagan that they had to start running things better, and they responded. First, by RIFing a whole lot of dead weight and training the remaining STRAC people intensively, second, by changing how they bought stuff, third, by combining weapon systems. The JSF is the best example of this. You don't need 6 different types of fighter bombers, you need 1 with a superior design that can do everything at a high level. They saved billions with that project already, and they haven't even gone into full production yet = long term they will save trillions. In fact, they are so efficient now, they are turning down spending project that they don't need. Like John Murtha's pork barrel spending project for tankers/C130's that the Air Force didn't want, or the destroyers the Navy didn't want. When Murtha was asked about it, he basically said: "Well, they are only thinking about fighters and I think they need to think about supply planes" what BS. It is politicians doing "favors" and forcing crap on the military that is the only thing left to fix. And, um, let's not forget that there's these little problems like fighting 2 land wars going on right now. I think that might have something to do with the budget being where it is right? Besides, it is DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared with the behemoth entitlement programs(75% of the budget). Which means that the entire defense budget, fit's into the 25% part, along with everything else that isn't an entitlement program. Name one other government agency that is turning down equipment or $$$ today and not always bitching for more instead. And, I thought CIA meant single, all encompassing, intelligence agency, hence the word CENTRAL! But, aren't we talking about the government here? So why should we be shocked that we are talking about useless waste and redundancy, again.

1) Sure they could, when the national media is your cheerleader, like it was until about 2 weeks ago. This thread is about Chris Mattews, you know funny feeling up the leg guy? 2) 3)Ok, like I said, the more I read about this, this looks like a Kennedy play from day one. I will be more than willing to post the links if you care. But please, let's agree that there is no way in hell that his "meteoric" rise doesn't have some significant Kennedy and Daley umpf behind since day 1. How in the hell else was he able to derail Clinton, when she had the unions, Naral, and women's rights people firmly in her camp at the beginning? Where was his money coming from in the beginning when she had all the usual big donor money locked up? Hell, NARAL just declared for him, what, 2 weeks ago? No way he gets this done without Kennedys and Daleys involved and that's what worries me. Back the point of the thread-->Obama hasn't been fully vetted. Nowhere near as closely as Bill Clinton or Bush was. This Rev. Wright, and hippie terrorist thing is all smoke that Hannity has been running for 2 years now. There's no way I believe that the Republicans don't have anything better than that. If I was them I would be holding the opposition research stuff off, since Hillary looks to be a better candidate now. Why put her back in play? I know this sound like waiting for the Rams walkthrough tape, but there's no way I believe that Rev. Wright is the big stuff. And it's funny how they have everybody up in arms over the little stuff. Dems better pray he didn't do any favors for the Daley machine or it's gonna be McGovern time, and if he keeps talking down to working people, it might not matter what the Republicans have because he'll be dead anyway.

This is good thread, and I am learning a lot. That is, if everyone knows what they are talking about. The economics part was questionable, though. Uncle Mitlie has proven his theories so many times in so many countries it's not even funny, so I would object to anyone who says different. Besides, anything is better than the falsehoods derived from strict Keynsian thinking. Wage/price fixing is never going to viable, or do we need to look at Cuba again? Still laughing at the "everybody gets a new pot" economic revolution. Well, at least they have something to piss in now.

That's true too. What I was shooting for was the fact that McClellan was promoted rather than "being hired". He worked for Ari as a deputy. So, like everything else in government, he had a "right" to be promoted, as he was already part of the big machine. This sometimes happens in business too(I have come across a significant # of VPs, etc., in my travels that are only there because of seniority, no way they were there for talent). But, I would love to know how many real recruiting searches are conducted with real recruiting firms for mid-level on up managers, vs. promoting from within/choice of one promotions, in the government. The bottom line is I am sick to tears of the big government = good government by default mentality. I would love to hear a Democrat talk just once about holding government, or themselves, accountable(say, the fact that they haven't done 1 thing they promised, and have made many things worse), because they don't seem to have any problem talking about holding everybody else accountable. I would also like a shift in general to looking at what is working = US Military, vs. what is not = DEA and the drug war, 5 separate intelligence agencies that we know about anyway, etc., and get rid of the ineffective stuff.(do I even need to mention NOT creating a Health Care monstrosity that is DOA effectiveness wise?)

So now Trent Edwards = Joe Montana? Really? Because that is precisely what your analogy means. State Senate = college, 1st term Senate run only opposed by a tool with no money = draft/rookie season and beating the Dolphins. Primary = OTAs. We haven't even got to training camp, but you already want to put Obama in the hall of Fame? Your ignorance of the Daley machine, or what is now called that, is quite telling. You want to know why they haven't run a candidate for President for 40 years? Hmmm. Or, maybe you know what I am talking about but are just being disingenuous? Why did you pick an estimate of 40 years? Not 30 or 50? Wouldn't have anything to do with 1962 would it? And you say they can't? Oh yes they can. Every hear of JFK? It's a historical fact that Chicago won him the election against Nixon by stuffing ballot boxes. It's also a historical fact that the Daley machine has been "connected" since the beginning, and not just with the mob: the Kennedy's too. I don't think I need to remind you what Joe Kennedy did before becoming royalty and all, nor do I need to remind you of how that business operated and how Chicago factored into all of it. So, the Daley's like Obama, he does their bidding, and whamo, the Kennedy's come out in full force. "Surprising" everyone with their willingness to throw HRC under the bus with such speed and so strongly. But, I know, I'm delusional and this is all just a coincidence right? However, I could be wrong, and things could have run in reverse, meaning that the Kennedy's once again are the ones telling their Chicago cousins who they want them to support. I read a few articles that seem to support this line of thinking rather than the other. But, in all cases, let's stop kidding ourselves here that Obama isn't the Kennedy's and Daley's boy, irony and all(Irish supporting Black, well Mulatto - doesn't happen often, and this is coming from a politically raised Irish guy and that's what I heard and saw growing up). And why not? They both need somebody they can control, and they both need somebody who will owe them something after he is elected. HRC offers them no chance of either, while Obama gives them a great chance for both. And if you think for one second that he would be "accomplishing" any of this, including Iowa, without the Kennedy's and Daley's, well, we have again crossed into BS country. The fact is, besides getting exposed for bringing in Illinois for JFK illegally and having to lay low for a long time nationally, the Daley machine doesn't normally see itself as a President picker. Quite the opposite. They let everybody else do the picking and then name their price for their support. For them, Chicago is like it's own country and their priorities are: their elections and how to make money from them, thereby guaranteeing their power. That's their focus. They know that if nobody pays them off, they can choose to sit out, and Illinois goes to the Republicans. However, in Obama's case they saw an opportunity and they broke with tradition, or, like I said, they got the phone call, and the offer sheet, from the Kennedys and got in line. The real reason they don't normally run presidential candidates is easy: none of their people could ever get elected. Not with the number of shady deals, corruption and patronage you have to agree to if you want to get elected to anything in that town. No way, especially if the national press scrutinized their people like they do with a potential President. Obama isn't one of their standard people, or is he? Like I said, the media has spent so much time with their funny feelings up their legs that they haven't bothered to do any real work on him and nobody really knows. If anything, Obama deserves our respect for somehow negotiating his existence along side the Daley machine(hopefully, for his sake that's all it is). But, if he is actually one of their guys, all the way, the Republicans probably already have all the dirt they need to crush him. And, while I usually would be annoyed by that, I wouldn't in this case because the last thing this country needs is a Daley drone in the White House. The one thing Obama supporters have going for them regarding this is that maybe Barack hasn't been around long enough to have gotten jammed up, or done too many deals, or maybe he actually has integrity and told them to F off. Now that would be a real accomplishment.

WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN AND IF WE DECIDE TO LET GOVERNMENT BE IN CHARGE OF THINGS. McCellan is political appointee, but he is also a fine example of thousands of government employees/political hacks who end up in jobs they aren't qualified for, never mind that they don't get paid very well. They have too much power and responsibility, but they have no chance of being able to handle either. The sheer size of the job they are trying to do is so far overblown, because the size of government is overblown, that you need to be top 5% person to be able to handle it, and you need to know how to operate in a massive organization. But, McCellan's, like most, talent level/skill set was so far below what is required, he was doomed to failure. People that are qualified are making 3 times what he is and therefore will never leave their jobs to do his. The government is so inordinately large that it automagically promotes the unqualified out of necessity. So you end up with the lowest common denominator at the highest levels, and the result is things like the Iraq WMD intelligence or the Katrina response or Madeline Albright as the Secretary of State. It's a perfect storm of stupidity. And when they fail, as they have been set up to do, they get angry, as anybody probably would, and they go out and write tell all books as a way to make $$$, because they a.) won't be working in government again, b.) probably won't be working in industry, c.) want to take a misguided shot at their old boss, or boss's boss, when it's not even their fault really. The real fault lies in all of them trying to propagate a myth = that large government can be efficient. The founding fathers blatantly said that government is supposed to be inefficient. And that makes sense. Example: How do you tell a state social worker whose job it is to tell people that they have AIDS to be more efficient? Honestly. Tell the patient faster? Cut their grief time? Send them emails? Do a GoToMeeting? Who else is going to do that job besides the government? But, by definition, the larger the government the larger the inefficiency. This is why we need to stop using the word efficient and/or "run government like a business", and start using the words effective and accountable. If McClellan was effective, which he wasn't, or accountable, he wouldn't have blatantly failed, and there would be no book. The solution? Do what the military did and reduce your force in terms of quantity, but compensate in terms of quality. If 20 people can put a man into space(X prize), then 500 people could easily run a government department, in terms of administration, instead of 5,000. Obviously you leave the people in the field who actually do the work the same. And, think what the salaries would be if you cut the admin jobs, got rid of ineffective departments, and cut the scope of what government was responsible for only to the things it can be effective at. Government has no profit motive, so all the money you don't give back to the taxpayer stays right where it is, and can be used to actually pay competitive or higher wages, which attracts the best people, which means more effectiveness.

So does this mean that the Mayor Daley/Chicago political machine that is largely recognized as one of, if not the, best in the country apparently had nothing to do with this? Are we to assume that Barack is simply a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type that "achieved" this grand meteoric rise all by his lonesome, with his lovely wife and $3000 dollars, starting out running for school board? Ya see, this is what I am talking about when I say the media didn't do its job. How about some reality: he's been running in the South Side of Chicago the entire time and hasn't ever faced a tough race. His state Senate seat was so obviously a machine decision on a seat they have controlled for the last 100 years. But, that's an accomplishment? How about his race for the US senate, where his real opponent dropped out for trying to get 7 of 9(his wife at the time) to do the nasty? So being the only guy to not do something blatantly stupid, is an accomplishment? He won his primary by 29 points, but I am sure Daley machine had nothing to do with any of that either. I guess the accomplishment bar is pretty low these days. Putting all these "accomplishments" up against what Hillary or especially McCain has done at the Federal level, for years, is, how else do you say this? Absurd? Better yet, what usually happens when you prepare the path for the kid, instead of the kid for the path? No sir, he has had way, way, way too much help and has competed in districts that were his from the get go, or not had to compete at all, but we wonder why he got soundly beat at the debates, and your are trying to tell me that he has accomplished something more significant than McCain has? Again, absurd in the extreme. Again, I agree fully that the guy knows how to work a room/crowd. There is no doubting that. But having a talent and possibly a lot of potential, and having a long standing track record of using that talent to get meaningful things done, and/or winning tough elections, are too different things. You're right. Random "people" didn't decide that, the Daley machine did. You're serious about this "he did it all thing", huh? Well, we are certainly going to see the truth come out when the big game starts. I thought Howard Dean was the "historic" campaigner, or....was is Clinton? Does this mean that every time there's Democratic primary going forward we are supposed to believe that one of the candidates is by default, historic and phenomenal? Does Howard Dean's ability to raise money mean he is/should be president? I wonder where that all went..... So I am supposed to believe that the game plan that Daley and his boys, Barack being one, has been running creates "unlikely" results in a town the completely control. Sorry but we crossed the "matter of perspective" border, and now we are getting way to far into BS country for me to listen to much more of this. So I am not supposed to believe my own eyes and ears for the last 6 months and take your word that I didn't see what I saw for myself? How very far-left of you. If you are talking about only the primary, then I marginally agree. But you can't be serious about the media's treatment of him since. He has gotten a pass, and I think it's because nobody wanted to be seen as the guy who was "picking on the black guy". If that's not a pass I don't know what is. Oh, and if the media has been tough on him the whole time, how come the far-left bloggers freaked out when he was finally asked some tough question at a debate and punted? Or did you forget about that hard core, Right winger George Stephanopolis set of questions? I watched almost every debate, on both sides, and you have got to be fooling yourself if you think Obama was asked tough questions by the media, until old Nazi George started in with his terribly biased questions. Um, the absurd bell is going off again. Especially when you compare Obama's treatment with the media was telling us that McCain was done forever about a 9 months ago. This is all true in the general sense. Nobody really knows how to do everything. Maybe Hillary can empathize a bit more having been right in front of it, but nobody really knows about it personally. However, you can look at the skill set we are pretty sure needs to be there and compare the candidates proven results against it. It's pieces and parts, but still. I dunno, from where I sit, proven results wise, especially regarding getting things done across the aisle, it's hard to argue that any of them are better at that skill than McCain. Like we talk about on TSW, "yeah but will it translate to the pro level?" I agree it's really a toss up for any of them, once they actually get there.

Wrong. I'd would find it very interesting for you to respond to any of it, but I doubt you can, hence the cop-out. Who knows? Maybe you have something reasonable to say. I would be very interested in how you think the middle class aren't going to end up paying for free health care, very soon, like a year after it goes into effect. And, I would also like to hear how you figure that the fact that the rules of business and economics suddenly go out the window because of what appears to be a guy who is good at giving speeches says. I'm not saying he can't do more, I am saying that I don't understand how you draw that conclusion based on what we have seen so far. Que? So what does that make independents who followed Gore or Kerry? Better yet, if Bush and his people are so easily dismissed, but beat you twice, what does that make people who couldn't find a way to beat this supposed great liar, idiot? I supposed it only makes sense to dismiss them as worthless as well. Some introspection may be in order...and it's not my fault or anybody else who chose not vote for Turd or Douche in 2000, nor it is Karl Rove's fault. Now we're talkin'. Perhaps it's not as simple as Bush Lied! or What did he know, when did he know it, now is it? Defining the problem is the toughest part, but, I guarantee that the best way to do that = analysis phase, is not to only listen to what people who are your clones think, and to definitely reserve judgment on what is actually happening until after you've purposely and genuinely talked to everyone who has a direct impact on the problem. I have no idea if Obama will do that. Not saying he won't, we simply don't know. McCain has done it, on multiple issues, so I don't see a problem for him there. Oh of course I will, and how much do you want to bet that if that happens, it will be 2000, 2002 all over again just more stupidity in another flavor? Things are best when there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, because they both end up fighting for air time over who has been better at cutting spending and taxes. The reverse = what we have now, a whole lot of talk and nothing getting done. The worst is when one party has it all because then stupid ideas get a pass because nobody wants to make waves.

I don't suffer from embarrassment much, and certainly not due to whatever a message board hero says, thinks or does. Like I said, try getting even a slight modicum of real world, not message board, relevance, please, and I might start to care what you think...which btw, is the only reason anyone becomes embarrassed, ever. I.E., I'm not embarrassed if you see my thing, if I am using it to piss on you. Besides, I have no idea why you care what I think, but apparently it's important to you since you have taken the time to read all my 760-odd posts, so as not to disappoint, I will continue.... What I see is a whole s_load of poorly cloaked insecurity coming from people who support Obama. I also think that at the start of this, the Democrats had every reason to think that the Republican nominee was a sitting duck, but that they couldn't have handled this worse since then. I also see that the media is the reason Obama is where he is now, and I am not sure if they are going to be able to dig him out of the debate hole he created for himself against Hillary in the last? one, again. So, my very reasonable scenario is this: I have no interest in taking a bet on a game that isn't going to be won by one of the teams, but rather, the supposed referees. I want to see apples to apples in a straight up competition that is about the candidates competing, not on the media throwing the game or playing CYA one way or the other. You can't argue: Chris Matthews, and the rest, talking about about the funny feeling he has up his leg was totally inappropriate. I saw that live and right then I started thinking McCain was going to win because Obama was getting a pass, and that he wasn't going to be ready for the big show. Since that day, everything has been pointing to that, other than a few great speeches here and there. I'm just saying that this is objectively what I see happening. You can get angry at me because I am laughing at shitt talkers about to get smoked, but I have been doing that since I can remember and I ain't changing. Aside: What does the word brand have to do with politics? I honestly have no idea how a term that started out getting over used about a year ago in business now seems necessary to over-use in politics. Doesn't anybody realize that over-using this word is merely one more way marketing people try to make themselves sound important in meetings? Christ, I have been scoffing at this for years, but suddenly now it catches on...weird. Seriously, you don't think it's laughable that a party who says they are for gay rights, acts stupidly, and ends up getting 34+ state laws banning gay marriage, somehow = to a "brand"? Which brand would that be? ScrewGaysOver.com? Sponsored by HelpIDon'tNeed.net? Why are ideas that 100% party people don't fully agree with even within the highest levels of a political party suddenly being looked at as homogenized products? or lines? Sorry but this brand thing is, like I said, just one more cliche in a long line that is picked up by wanna-bes and over used for everything when they hear someone say it effectively once. What all this "branding" discussion says is that nobody has any f'ing clue what is happening with this election cycle. But, as always, everybody thinks that their wish = reality. What is actually happening, which is ground most of the political folks have never been on before, and what they are trying to say is happening, again, having never been here before, are far and away 2 different things, but they are using a new term to at least make it sound like they know what they are talking about.

All good points, but what if all the speculators are moving in lock step = barely trading, just buying their contracts, holding them and waiting on selling what amounts to be a sure thing as long as everybody else is doing it? I mean who in their right mind would be shorting right now? And, wouldn't that cause a "pinning" in one direction especially if it has been going on for a year(s)? Regulated market or not, what if this isn't due to collusion, what if it's just what everybody is doing and no one is giving them a good reason not to? I'm not sure about the "China/India demand is rising" reasoning either. For the price to go up this high wouldn't that require something on the order of 200% increase in demand over about 18 months? That seem like an awfully high amount of demand to just suddenly appear.

Sorry, 2 things wrong here, I'm not declining, and McCain isn't my man. For me this is like betting on a Seahawks vs. 49ers game, and I simply want to watch them play in a real game before I bet. And buddy, I have no idea where you got such a high opinion of yourself that somehow you think anything you, or anybody you know, will ever do/say anything for the rest of your lives that will cause me to be embarrassed. Now that is funny. Time to take stock of your actual relevance, pal. No doubt you're a good poster here, but really? Embarrassed? Come on. But, then again, it's not surprising given the obvious trend here among far left people who somehow think they are superior to the average person. I don't care, if you want to bet after the first debate, great, if you don't, that's fine too, but those are my terms.

Well, apparently you didn't think this one through very well, which isn't much of a surprise. First of all, you don't seem to know that 75% of the Federal budget is spent on ENTITLEMENT programs. I noticed that nowhere in your post you include the estimated $500-$1Trillion( with a T )cost of free health care, and I even think that's a laugher, it's likely to cost $2Ts yearly when all is said and done. That new money is supposed to come from where, exactly? You can't tax the rich any further without open revolt, and you won't make poor people pay anything, so who does that leave? THE MIDDLE CLASS! The inability of Far-Left people to see the whole problem for what it is never ceases to amaze. But, of course, why let something like proportion and reason get in the way of: Bumper sticker #1 = WE TAX RICH PEOPLE....first....then....yeah, then we basically tax everybody. Newsflash: people don't like war! Wow, now this was a poll worth every penny, huh? See, if you took the same poll in 1944, I wonder what the answer would be? OMG, 76-80%! The difference: people didn't bother with needing to take a poll to know that nobody likes war then. But, this is a different time, and apparently we need to be reminded of the obvious. The funny part is if I was asked that question in that poll, I would also say I hate the war in Iraq, as I hate all war. The difference, I think, is that I don't phony up and pretend like war is not a necessary evil, especially when you are dealing with an irrational enemy. I'm sure if Al Gore decided to go to war in Iraq you'd be just as pissed, right? But, of course, why let reality and prudent thought get in the way of: Bumper sticker #2 = PEOPLE HATE THIS WAR MORE THAN ANY OTHER WAR. Right, and all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal, sure. Right, so the American Democrats who handed Obama 30 point losses in the swing states that are going to really count in November, don't wanna hear about it? This is laughable. McCain has done a fine job of deflecting: Bumper sticker #3 McCAIN = BUSH...even though pretty much the reason McCain wasn't the nominee in 2000 was that McCain had broken ranks with the people that supported Bush, multiple times, and was attacked for it, let's pretend that didn't happen. But sure, we're on a roll and denial of fact is a pattern for you in this post. McCain = Bush is such BS that again, I find myself laughing at this pitiful attempt at a pivot. This is why I said above that so far it appears to me that a college sophomore is acting as Obama's Karl Rove. If they keep this up, when all we have heard about McCain is that he bucks the Republicans every time he does it, for the last 15 years, it's going to get even more funny. So please, by all means don't let me stop you. I love a good laugh. I love this "brand" thing. The next once-useful word to suffer the cliche beating of the uniformed and/or wanna-bes. "Brand" soon to join "Mission Statement", "Out of the box", "Issue", "Don't go there" and "Jump the Shark" as utterly meaningless thanks to retards, film at 11. Of course, the current 9% approval rating of the Democratic Congress and the fact that they have yet to keep 1 of the promises they made won't factor into any of your thinking, and why should it? Why indeed? As always, you guys start with the conclusion and then go chase facts to back it up. You are entitled to your opinion of how things are going to go, what you aren't entitled to is ignoring the truth about how the availability of capital effects economic growth. Much smarter people than both of us have figured out these rules, and confirmed them, for years. But, of course, why should sound business principles and historical fact get in the way of: Bumper Sticker #4 REPUBLICANS ARE DEAD...but the ideas that run business are....not...so...if the ideas aren't dead, because they are true, then...hmm, somebody is bound to come along, pick them up and start all over again huh? I remember Laura Ingraham saying something like this after the 2002 election, which made history because for the first time a new president's party picked up seats, and I remember thinking that was cocky. You, talking smack about a Congress that has a 9% approval rating and doesn't even try, that's not cocky, that's just funny. Americans have been tired of these issues since John Adams became the President and didn't fire the old cabinet. The fact is, to be good, the President needs everybody sooner or later, and that includes support from trial lawyers some days, and Wall Street the next. Why? Because he represents everybody, and because we live in a republic, which, by definition, means that somebody is always coming around representing the interests of somebody else, who is "paying" them in one way or another to do so, elected official or lobbyist. That's reality. I think it's blatantly naive to assume that this is going to change when we have had 200 years of it mostly working properly. Fundamentally, this comes down to getting ideas to the people you think need to hear them. So I ask you, what will replace the current system? It's one thing to talk about change, or positive change for that matter. So I am asking, change to what, and how will that what be better? What's the alternative we are going to change to? Email? How do we expect Congress to understand a complex issue that's important to us unless we send somebody/go down there to talk with them about it? Osmosis? Oprah? Fox News? So, what replaces the current discussion/communication system? And, as a project manager, who has seen the government screw up project after project, even 2 car funeral gigs, please don't tell me that they are going to do an IT play that's actually going to work. But, of course, why let a reasonable question get in the way of: Bumper Sticker #5 WE GOING TO CHANGE....to something....we just don't know what it is yet, or whether it will make things better, but let's say the word change over and over again....while we rush around and try to find something substantive to hang our hat on. Let me make this as absolutely clear to you as I can. Nobody is laughing at us right now, especially Europe, who now fully understands that they hold 0 sway over the Middle East. You can say that we failed in Iraq for a while, but even you can't say it anymore. And the message you didn't get out of this is this: nobody will will be calling our bluff for a long time, because we have proven that we will use force, and even invade your country, if we have to. That, my friend, is the original Teddy Roosevelt speak softly, carry a big stick diplomacy gameplan that we have been using to great effect for years. Unfortunately, when you carry a big stick, every 20-30 years or so, some ahole starts thinking you don't have the guts to use the stick, or that that stick isn't so big, and you have to smack him around with to make an example of him. My point is this: without the big stick, nobody cares how you speak. Say what you want, but for the next 20 years every little piss ant dictator now knows that we have no problem going to military options as a last resort and that those options are real, not just talk. That creates a realistic setting for our diplomats to do their jobs and keep us out of war in the first place. So, your analysis is flawed once again, my friend. B word all you want, but the reality that the threat of force against this country must be met with the certain threat of reciprocity has been proven out once again, as it has about 30 times already. As a one of my history professors used to say: Vietnam was just unlucky, that war was going to get fought someplace, and it ended up being there, and she's right. Yeah there's the Great and Knowledgeable Democratic Congress': 0 energy policy, the 0 drilling for oil in our own backyard that the Saudis don't understand = why are we bitching at them when we can get our own oil, and why it's OK for Cuba and not us, the shale oil moratorium they just voted for that I honestly have no idea what they are thinking, since we can get a s_load of oil from that and we have an s_load of shale, to name a few things... See that's the difference I am not throwing dirt, I am simply addressing the issues as issues. You're not going to hear me talk about what Rev. Wright said, you're going to hear me say: how can Obama, or his people, or both be so stupid as to let that become an issue? And, if they are that ineffective on an easy one, why should I trust him/them with dealing something of massive import, like China? Apparently you haven't read many of my posts because I am far from a Conservative. I am pro: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Legalized Drugs, Realistic Immigration policy that doesn't start by calling 12 million illegals criminals, tougher emission standards, and for doubling the R&D grants we give out asap as a way to get people into energy alternatives. All of the above simply stands to REASON(meaning I actually thought about each issue for myself without someone telling me what to think using bumper stickers). I am against things like raising taxes in an economic slowdown, not building nuclear power plants, or cutting and running in Iraq because they do not stand to reason. Period. I couldn't care less who is in power, but it appears to me that Democrats right now are absolutely fooling themselves with how they think us independents perceive them, and BTW, we are the votes that win elections, not the ideology retards who cancel each other out.

So you do want to go for it on 4th and 13 in the first half, huh? Sure, but let's wait until after the first debate. I don't want to take advantage of you. That you would start betting now, when they haven't really gone toe to toe yet, merely proves my point, again. I really don't understand why anybody thinks Obama is even close to having this locked up, especially when Democrats have given McCain the head start they have. I just listened to a speech earlier, and despite the best attempts of "protesters" = obviously plants, he sounds pretty darn formidable, while everything I have heard from Obama lately sounds pretty darn weak. But, like I said, let's wait till after the first debate so we can see apples to apples first.

It really is too bad, because they weren't always this way. It used to be about supporting workers only and giving people a fighting chance, not coddling non-workers/half-ass workers by giving away things that come as a result of doing a good job for free = entitling the undeserving. Or, lining up incentives not to work or do more because doing so = no free money or more taxes = why bother? It used to be about standing up to our enemies, every day all the time, and yes, fighting preemptive wars that we knew we were going to have to fight sooner or later(Wilson, FDR, JFK). For example, it used to have presidents who would go over to any enemy's doorstep and give him the bird(JFK in Berlin), or, confronting the Japanese about their activities in China, knowing full well that it would lead to war(FDR's whole 1939-40 gameplan). Mostly it used to be about taking on the problems we face head on and actually doing something that would solve those problems, not spending all its time propping up failed programs because they get votes out of the deal, or playing CYA if what they said ends up wrong. It's great foreign policy presidents were men of action based on character(Truman), not men of words based on political expediency(LBJ, Carter, Clinton). What started out as a set of temporary policies designed to get us out of the trouble that was the Great Depression, have been bastardized(LBJ, Carter) into a way to send us right back there. Hell, Carter almost did it. Couple that with a way, way, way, over-developed ego, a smugness that borders on comical, and an absolute certainly on so many issues that merely betrays their ignorance of them, and you have the new Democrats, hooray. Instead of the party that was about thinking, coming up with ideas and leading the way with those ideas, it's now about bitching, repeating slogans over and over, and pointing fingers while solving nothing. We need look no further than the wonderful 2006 Democratic Congress, look at their results and therefore approval rating, to see that the difference is obvious. It really is too bad.

I am 100% behind an explanation of Parsley. Especially what purpose it serves and who thinks it is necessary on plates at low end restaurants. Does it somehow really tie the plate together? Is this another example of Republicans contempt for the middle class? Who is behind this infernal Parsley conspiracy, and how did they convince millions that a completely useless piece of plant being deposited on dinner plates is necessary? Follow the money, who stands to gain from Parsley, and which Parsley lobbyists are plying their trade on our nations leaders, convincing them to protect and preserve this dirty industry which serves no worldly purpose other than to line to pockets of greedy Corporate America Parsley farmers and stagger our imagination as to why something that looks like a weed is supposedly aesthetically pleasing, especially next to our food? Why does McCain refer to Parsely as a spiritual "Guide"? Is this further evidence of Parsley operatives attempting to subjugate us using their "what could be more spiritual than a useless plant" ideals in an effort to create a Parsley theocracy? Who is behind the suggestion that Parsley is somehow a spiritually useful device? This is just one more example of how Republicans use religion to try and control us. They have infiltrated these restaurants and have placed parsley on our plates to force their religious beliefs on us. It's so obvious, this is why we should vote for Obama!!!

Looks like somebody actually knows the futures market. Careful, actually knowing what you are talking about hasn't been well received around here lately. As far as where this all ends, it actually doesn't take that much to burst this bubble. Even a slightly persistent rumor could do the job and start some people taking short positions. If more than a few start doing that, everybody else will have to do something about their positions. At the very least everybody will be on the phone, and that by itself is enough to start a legion of people mitigating their risk. It could be a simple rumor like: "Russia has produced more oil than they estimated" or, "South Pacific Demand not likely to be as high" that starts the trend, and the rest will be based on the fact that prices have been so high, for so long, that people assume that there has got to be a correction sooner or later. The whole point of futures trading is to know when things are going to happen ahead of time and not get caught holding the bag. Prices have been high for so long, everybody will start to "expect" a drop and that expectation can make the slightest info look larger than it is, which can start the ball rolling as well. What I see is any of the following things come true in the next 3 months there will be a correction: 1. Positive movement on Israel/Palestine 2. Continued progress in Iraq, in fact any major political milestone passed 3. Any kind of reasonable energy policy coming from DC. 4. The weakening of the Environmental Lobby by common sense forces the Democrats to lift their moratorium on shale oil(they just voted to continue it 2 weeks ago so I doubt it, but this would be = a nuke going off). 5. Any kind of unifying UN resolution that goes after Iran. 6. As I said above, any kind of news regarding supply/demand

Sorry but your changes don't really work. Swing and a miss, another strike, maybe Molson will get in on this for a retard strike out. Looks like you need to go re-read Jack's books before you use him in your signature line. Try again: The point I am making is that in this thread, I have made a clear, logical position for why raising taxes in midst of an economic slow down is fundamentally a bad idea, and when confronted with that logic, we end up with some tool talking about Ben Stein. What does that even mean? Should we assume that you guys are accepting what I am saying and just trying to grab any port in the storm? It's hysterical that you are proving my point for me by your response. Far left liberals vs. clearly superior ideas = crazy liberals(there are sane ones) play word games, bring up nonsense points and attack random targets like Ben Stein and Hannity. Or, have you simply not taken economics or finance in college yet? maybe still in high school? I am really going to enjoy this political season, and I'll be howling laughing at this stupidity in November. Can't wait for the standardized, crazy left, blame game methodology to game to start if McCain gets elected. The media is already setting it up, this way they can say that the only reason McCain got elected is because the Democrats tore themselves up. So, the media gets defer all blame for basically creating this mess in the first place. They never took any time to vet Obama and instead immediately anointed him, they scolded Hillary, and they tried to ignore McCain.... ...now Obama has 4 albatrosses hanging around his neck and we haven't even gotten to his quesitonable tax, health care and defense policies yet. Hillary now looks to me like the best candidate(from an electable standpoint), but she isn't even gonna get a chance to play in the big game. McCain has been doing nothing but running unopposed on the cheap, raising money, getting his people together, and looking very Presidential the entire time. He is an expert politician and you dumbasses are giving him every opportunity to crush you(hint: he doesn't really need your help to do that). He's basically running against nothing = zero substance, shallow, barely considered and poorly thought out/constructed policies that appear to be the work of a college sophomore. Not very smart, it's like continuing to fumble the ball on your own 20 against the Colts, but why should we expect sound thinking from a party that has been taken over by people who think emoticons and/or snarky comments = workable ideas? The debates are going to be real entertainment. If Obama can't even debate Hillary, what do you think he's going to do against McCain(whiff, another strike)? How much do you want to bet that as soon as the general election really starts, the Obama = JFK crap comes out from the media? Nothing could be more phony, but why should we expect anything else from people like Chris Matthews? After all, he gets inspirational feelings up his leg whenever Obama says anything. Like I said, there were going to be 2 major upsets/choke jobs this year, and we have already seen one. And, they will happen for the same reason: hubris. Obama lovers acting like they have already won = going for it on 4th and 13 in the 1st half. I hope you are enjoying yourselves now, because even if Obama wins he will come into office very, very weak, and it's likely we will all suffer during his 1(single) term.

What a shocker, instead of replied to any of the content, we get to hear: 1. A dismissal of a dismissal without any comment as to why 2. A false premise that equates my rational thought with compulsory indoctrination. Sorry dude, but the facts I have laid out are what they are. Attack all you like but, obviously, don't try to actually dispute any of them reasonably. Why should we expect you to? When do you guys ever not respond with emotion? And let's bring up a movie that has nothing to do with what I am talking about as well. Great communication skills + a withering command of the facts..... Once again, we see that when far-left people are confronted wit reality and reasonable set of positions based on knowledge, experience, and logic, they are left with.....what exactly, Ben f'ing Stein?

It's not an excuse I was just telling the truth. OTOH that post was fairly stupid, and I'm not gonna delete it as punishment for drinking and posting. I should know better.

First of all, I'm hammered. I have nothing to do this morning for the first time in a long time. (edit: after reading this crap perhaps I should have just gone to bed but hey, I get to talk smack too once in a while, which is why I am leaving it as it is) I have every intention of finishing off all the booze in the house and heading to Tudor Lounge around noon. Anyway, pardon me if this gets retarded.....I was talking to a guy about the difference between the Old Beatles and the Sgt Pepper beatles 45 mins ago at the Pink, and I hit Jim's on the way. Like I said, rtard, rare form, whatever. Honestly, I find this whole "mortgage crisis" hysterical. My sister used to date one of these pricks. In fact, she organized a surprise 30th b-day for me when I came back from what I was doing(sneaky pete), and lo and behold, she was dating this mortgage "exec" = middle manager douche who thought he was hot shitT. And, at the time, she thought it was a good idea to bring him along. Hysterical. He actually tried to impress me with his $50k salary. Still laughing about that. For me its the same as blzurl(whatever) being a liberal schill and driving merc at the same time. Like being liberal or having a merc makes you cool, and doesn't make a giant phony Kunt--->bwaaaaah how funny is that?. I had no idea blusrlcommie had a web site..(im going to piss off bluefire but :lol: :lol: :w00t: :w00t:) But, here's the thing: my brother and I didn't like this kid from the jump. However, we were polite as we could be, as we were raised. The funny part is my enlisted Navy buddy from high school literally called him out at the party. Not only in terms of honor, but in terms of his job as well. What I didn't know was that my enlisted, toolbox, retard, buddy had been investing in real estate the entire time he was in, and that he knew the market better than Dbag. Meanwhile Dbag is trying to convince me that my buddy, who worked as a techy on a techy frigate, didn't know his job. Of course the fun ensued, and what's better? My sister chucked Dbag's sorry ass a week later, in front of all his friends, 2 mins before he was going to supposedly dump her. Thank God for decent women. One of his work "buddies" wives rolled over on him and that was that. I didn't even think about this until yesterday. My brother called me up and sure as hell saw this Dbag applying for a job at the pizza shop he hangs out at. Of course, as we were raised, all he said to Dbag was "Hi". I know we prematurely hang people to a fault in this country(and certainly on this website), but this is one case where it is highly deserved. This tool explained to me their whole "business" and I told him honestly to seek life elsewhere if he had any intention of dating my sister long term. Looks like his whole "who cares about the poor as long as they owe me money" plan, job, shittty existence, now rates him a delivery boy job. Karma says hi.

This is also gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Drat! Foiled again. Lame attempt at a Rick Roll. Should've run that through a proxy or one of my sites.

Check out these emoticons, I think we should talk to SDS and get them deployed here.

Still a card carrying member of the emoticon police I see...don't cry, I haven't picked on you about your emoticon sensitivity in years.

Thank you. That's the problem for me, I suppose I identify with the Libertarians the most, but not on everything. This stems from the fact that most libertarian thinking is based on starting with the truth, and then devising solutions to problems based on the facts, as opposed to starting with a "solves everything" solution(ideology) and then trying to find truths that support the use of that solution, and ignoring everything else. For example, I want all drugs to be legalized tomorrow for purely economic reasons. There is no excuse for us creating a multi-billion $$$ industry that is highly inefficient, not regulated, not taxed at all and is run by the worst people in our society = shitbirds get money they don't really deserve. Wishing away/emotional campaigns against this multi-billion dollar industry have obviously done nothing. Right now we spend about 2 billion on illegal drugs a year, and we also spend 2 billion on stopping them. Anybody else see $2B - $2B = 0? And we wonder why we aren't getting anywhere. Meanwhile Democrats are the biggest supporters of keeping them illegal because they keep illegal money going into their constituents' neighborhoods on one side of the equation, and more government jobs on the other, while at the same time telling us that they are "tough on crime", and ensure that their will always be poor people who owe them something = votes. However, I don't agree with libertarians on how they handle property transfer. I am against creating an economic status for people that doesn't require them to do anything useful for the rest of us with their day, highly rich or highly poor(no welfare, ever, disability only). This is also why the retirement age should be changed immediately to reflect current demographics. As per Toby on West Wing: "When FDR created social security, he didn't mean 20 years of shuffle board". This does not mean that I favor inheritance taxes, as in: what will the government do with the money they take that is better than investing it into the economy? Answer: nothing. Rather, I would like to see a government trustee appointed to any estate/$$$ that is passed on that is >$500k. Wealth = responsibility and we have every right to enforce responsible behavior with wealth, especially when it's merely being handed to you. BTW, if we go to the flat tax, and get rid of most of the IRS, this would be a great way to give the best of the displaced IRS employees/tax accountants something to do. The trustee would work with the inheritor to establish a career path that actually does something useful and the inheritor has to stick to it, or, no $$$ for baby.