jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
I think the majority of this thread can be summed up this way:
If you're on the right, the middle looks left to you -- consequently anywhere left of center looks loony left to you.
If you're on the left, the middle looks right to you -- consequently anywhere right of center looks loony right to you.
How you guys can have a 5 page thread about this boggles the mind. It's like some of you are just completely incapable of putting yourselves in someone else's shoes for even a second.
-
Is having a (hands-free) conversation on a cell phone more or less distracting than having a conversation with the person in the passenger (or back) seat?
-
Looking forward to the "Ban on Kids yelling and being annoying in the back-seat" and the "Ban on having a conversation with your wife" bills that are undoubtedly on their way soon.
-
I don't have a problem with government investing in "green" energies as a matter of fact I encourage it.
I like most of your post. This part, I can't get behind, though. They will always do a poor job 'investing', because there isn't real accountability to be 'right'. Since they don't have to be 'right', the 'investments' will ALWAYS end up being political favors rather than the vetting process you've described. Always.
-
-
I don't know anyone serious who thinks that raising tax rates won't raise revenue. The (narrowly defined) issue is that the increase in tax revenue is always lower than the projected increase -- which, when budgets are created based on higher than projected revenues, inevitably leads to ever increasing deficits.
Which still doesn't address the ever larger issue of relying on an ever smaller percentage of people to fund the working of the government. The 'rich' don't have enough to bail the gov't out of its self-dug hole.
-
Magox has been saying for a long time that Romney's harder task will be winning the primary because he has a lot of Independent appeal and he's right.
At this point, he's my choice.
Fair enough. I'm interested in hearing thoughts about whether or not you think this is a deliberate campaign strategy (to sort of not pay attention to the fervent base) or if you think they are trying to appeal to the base, but just don't know how.
-
And that $1.76 Trillion number is STILL the CBO number, which requires the CBO to suspend reality and assume that every single thing in the legislation will happen exactly as it is written. Which includes many, many ridiculous things, the only one I can recall right now is the Medicare Doc Fix. The CBO is required to assume that the Medicare 'Doc Fix' won't happen under the current legislation (I think this amounts to $500 million a year? Is that right?). Of course the Medicare 'Doc Fix' will, of course, happen every year and add at least $5 billion to that total. A billion here and a billion there; pretty soon we're talking about real dollars!
I think Magox has a really good handle on more details about this...
-
I have been a Mitt Romney supporter since 2008, so I am certainly biased.
However. A part of me was very happy that he lost Alabama and Mississippi (although, to be fair, he really did pretty well at 29% and 31%). It seems to me that Mitt Romney would have to say things that would almost assuredly make him unelectable in the General Election in order to win those types of Primaries, which leads me to an interesting question -- Is this a brilliant campaign strategy, or is it really going to be a tough, terrible, debilitating slog on through to the convention?
It would certainly take a lot of chutzpah to 'intentionally' lose in places that, in order to win, you'd have to really do things that would alienate Independents. That sort of strategy requires you to risk losing momentum and not being able to build your own. I think the campaign has done a really masterful job of not panicking, sticking to their gameplan and using their money advantage to dull the momentum swings from the, ahem, Conservative CandidatesTM.
On the other hand, you can also argue that they're 'doing their best' but he just doesn't have what it takes to truly win the Primary and, by extension, the General.
Thoughts?
-
.
Well then. You must agree that the left has convinced many that the woman who ushered in ACES, AGIA and ethics reform is an idiot? The woman who was President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors and chairman of both the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and the U.S.'s Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) is an idiot? The woman who managed a $14 billion budget as the CEO of Alaska is an idiot? The woman who made ExxonMobil blink is an idiot? (Game Change Tries To Re-write Palin)
All thanks to Katie's and Charlie's selective interviewing and crack editing techniques.
I don't ever remember calling her an idiot. In my opinion, she's not good enough for the job she was nominated for -- and I was thrilled with the choice at the beginning. Turns out I was wrong.
-
I didn't make any claims about Palin. I'm stating that I've never seen or heard anything that gives an indication that Obama's particularly well versed in foreign matters.
OK. You were referencing a post that was comparing the two, so I just assumed you were comparing, too.
Also, you made the claim that he "never got grilled by anyone" -- I was simply making the point that no one gets 'grilled' on this stuff.
-
Bush Doctrine? You're kidding right? Gibson got it wrong. Moron is as moron does I guess. You haven't made a valid point yet. Here: A complete fisking of that argument.
Many more articles can be provided as well as the way the interview was edited complete with how she was seated and the intentional optics of Charlie looking down and over his glasses.
Maybe you should re-read my post.
-
I must have missed that. I never saw anyone grill him on any of these issues and try to pin him up against a wall. The only person who even made so much as a pretense of challenging him was O'Reilly who was really just trying to gain ratings while trying to prove himself to the left wing media. Everything else he said was fairly basic or read off the teleprompter.
Who does get grilled? Sarah Palin got 'grilled'? By Katie Couric? I mean, she did ask her what newspapers and magazines she read so, yeah, that's a real tough question. Charlie Gibson? By asking her about the Bush Doctrine? If she was even remotely able to answer that question, she should have taken Charlie's head off with it, because his understanding of what the 'Bush Doctrine' was completely superficial, if not flat-out wrong.
Perhaps everything Obama said was fairly basic. Even if it was, Palin couldn't/didn't even get the basics right.
-
Maybe not presidential material, but if I were elected President I'd certainly like to have her on my staff...
Senior Advisor level or intern?
Or was that a double, double entendre?
-
but read the couric interview transcript and tell me with a staight face that palin had any right even being considered for a job that's a heartbeat away from the presidency.
After going through the campaign process, very, very few people actually think Sarah Palin should have been considered for the job. I don't actually know even one single person who thinks she should be considered Presidential material. It is such a red-herring to bring this up over and over.
Wait, what?!?
How is that? Two things:
1. Palin was running for VP not President and was right on the role of the Vice President (Article I of the Constitution, which describes the authority of the legislative branch, says that "the vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." Aside from the job of replacing a president who dies or is unable to serve, the only vice presidential duties that are spelled out in the Constitution are legislative in character. It does not describe the role of the executive branch as Biden claimed) AND international issues in her debates against Slow Joe Biden (crazy Joe...When we kicked along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.").
2. Obama had ZERO knowledge or experience on complicated national and international issues. That's the whole reason Joe Biden is VP now. It sure wasn't to get the Delaware votes.
Oh just stop it. Then-Senator Obama could articulate his positions (such as they were) clearly and articulately, as well as demonstrating a strong command and understanding of what was happening in the world. It was clear that he knew what the issues were (it was always less clear that he understood whether or not they were realistic -- see Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act for example). Sarah Palin, for whatever reason, was not able to demonstrate that she had an understanding of what was happening in the world, let alone being able to have us trust her judgment with regard to those issues.
-
Why shouldn't they have? Why do American Taxpayers have to subsidize the poor decisions of others? I guess we'll just line up the next time the financial markets crash because financial intitutions do whatever they want, essentially risk free....
You continue to inter-change 'markets' with 'institutions'. People keep trying to tell you the difference, but either through ignorance or stubbornness you continue to conflate the two. Please listen to them.
The short-term markets were completely gone. Good company, bad company, good bank, bad bank. All of them were treated equally --> no credit. The government stepped in and provided the liquidity the system needed (and that would have been there had the times been 'normal'), at a very steep price. The banks made it through that crisis and paid back their loans. The Fed made money. The banks didn't die. Taxpayers (citizens) got their paychecks every two weeks. Investors lost billions (at least). What, again, is the problem with this? Ideology?
-
I've watched the entire thing and have watched large chunks of it probably 3-4 other times. It 'seems' just WAY over the top. For example: I have a hard time believing that a Governor would have ZERO idea of what the Fed is. I'm sure she couldn't tell you exactly how they conduct monetary policy, (For the record: It was clear to me during the campaign that John McCain had NO idea what he was talking about with respect to the economic crisis.) but the movie made it seem like she never heard of it before (thinking the 'Fed' was short for the Federal Government).
I didn't find the movie 'partisan'. I thought John McCain came off extremely well in the movie, as did the major senior advisers. I felt it made Palin look like a decent person who got caught up in something she was absolutely not ready for -- It would have taken a remarkable amount of self-awareness (and confidence) to turn down the VP nominee if you were Palin.
I hadn't heard or read about the independent confirmation from the 24 (or whatever) advisors verifying the scenes. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the two main advisors in the movie (Steve Scmidt and Nicole Wallace) would 'lie' to make Palin look as bad as possible, since it that 'helps' them. I also wouldn't be shocked if the movie were an absolute dead-on-balls-accurate portrait of Gov. Palin during that time.
Did you guys know that Alaska's population is smaller than Erie County (Personally, I was shocked to find that out)? Anyone think Chris Collins or Mark Poloncarz should be given the legitimacy Palin was given? Think either of them are qualified to be VP?
-
my guess, short time hardship, bankruptcies and firm with cash and resources coming in to pick up bargain in the trash heap...
That's your problem right there. Every and any institution that is/was large enough to do that couldn't. Because the short-term markets were no longer pricing 'risk'. Those markets stopped existing. Good company, bad company, good bank, bad bank -- Everyone was treated the same (no short-term credit) because no one had any idea who the "next Lehman" was. Gov't came in and said "Don't worry -- no more Lehman's" and gave liquidity and capital (at a very steep price) to most of the banks in the country. And it worked. Fed made money. Banks didn't die. People got their paychecks. Investors lost billions. What's the problem?
-
If they give a waiver, that is legal. I am not familiar with a law named Obamacare. Sorry, but I was taught in grade school to refer to things by their proper names. There is no Obamacare or Rombeycare. There may be an Adamcare law in the near future, though.
What is your problem? Ahh... forget it. Not worth the effort. Congratulations.
-
You are absolutely right. I completely apologize and I wish the church would vote to abolish the constitution and implement their own, as that has historically worked well
Sometimes people just say the dumbest things. Just think about this statement for 30 seconds and see if you want to take it back.
Are you out of your mind? Were you sleeping when the HHS gave waiver after waiver after waiver to other businesses with respect to certain (other) provisions of Obamacare? Why the big fuss over this one? Were those businesses 'abolishing the constitution and implementing their own'?
-
Sorry, but if they don't like it, they don't have to hire people. We may not have a great option, but I'd prefer that the government makes laws deciding such things, and the catholic church should refrain from deciding them. Religous organizations gaining too much power is just as bad, if not worse than the government getting too much.
Sometimes people just say the dumbest things. Just think about this statement for 30 seconds and see if you want to take it back.
-
In good faith, I'll try again. From your first post:
Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion.
Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so.
So concern #1 is that A) a CEO makes decisions in the morning that transparently and directly lead to either a profit or loss in the next day, week, or year. B)Gov't doesn't work that way. Therefore: C)Is this difference an impediment to Romney's success?
Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side.And Concern #2 is that Business folks don't show well as President.
I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related.
Since I believe your concern #1 to be completely inaccurate: No. They're not related. That's what people keep trying to tell you. Concern #1 does not reflect reality. Business is not nearly as transparent as you're attempting to make it. In my opinion.
-
Like suddenly having the OIG audit all Federal dollars flowing in there, and thereby holding up the entire process, and getting those who want go gain favor to pin it all on the Rep.?
Right. That *totally* sounds just as easy as saying: "Mr. VP, we're moving in a different direction and I don't think you can take us there. Pack your things, we're getting rid of you."
you are fooling yourselves if you believe CEOs firing their upper managers is any easier than firing Congress.If you think that's true, then you and I will just have to agree to disagree. You think it's just as hard for CEO's to fire their upper managers as it is for the President to 'fire' Congress. I disagree. I think it's pretty darn easy for the CEO to get rid of people when he wants to, and I think it's much more difficult for the President to get rid of people in Congress. Agree to disagree?
Hope you had fun last night -- It was a pretty lame Saturday for me in CT. At least I got to watch a really bad SNL, though -- so I've got that going for me. You go to Allentown? I sincerely apologize about keeping you from booze, though -- there is no way that this conversation is worth that!
[Edited for re-thinking the personal nature of the post.]
-
you are fooling yourselves if you believe CEOs firing their upper managers is any easier than firing Congress.
It must be really hard to fire upper managers, since the President has no power at all to 'fire' Congress. OK, though, maybe you have some good points backing this up. Let's see!
Even when the person has the full power of the office, the only time CEOs can really fire people is when they first take the job.Wait -- So CEO's can actually fire upper managers? But, OK, only when they first start, I guess, so OK, I'm still with you, maybe. Let's see what other points you have (Still waiting to see how the President can 'fire' Congress)
Now of course a CEO can fire a low-mid level employee, but so can a President.Right. A CEO can fire people. Wait. That can't be right. I'm confused. Which member of Congress is the low-mid level employee that the President can fire? Is that like the junior Senator from Wyoming (who cares about that guy -- AMIRIGHT!?!?)
And, CEOs also have to deal with people who either have critical knowledge or political support from the group they represent, who therefore cannot be fired under any circumstance.Right! Sort of like Congress! Wait-- That's what I said! Now I'm REALLY confused.
Fixing this problem has become part of my scope more than once. This way, it's our fault when the annoying, insubordinate VP is separated, not the CEO's. But, even that takes months/a year. Get it?I *totally* "Get it" now. CEO's can fire people. Even people who "cannot be fired under any circumstance" Wait! That can't be right! You said up above that it's harder to fire 'upper managers' than it is for the President to fire Congress -- now I'm just lost. Why do you keep telling me how CEO's can do the thing you say they can't do?
Faulty comparison.
See, I don't think it's a faulty comparison at all. CEO's need their upper managers to buy into their strategery in order to be successful. A President needs Congress to buy into his/her strategery (grossly simplified -- I'm aware of the simplification I'm making) to be successful. The difference is that the CEO has direct ways to get rid of, or minimize the influence of, the people who aren't buying in to his vision. (Even if he isn't firing people, he's doing re-orgs, he's giving people crappy bonuses (to try and get them to leave), he's putting them on projects that are not useful (again, trying to get them to leave), etc...) A President doesn't have that direct ability to get rid of those in Congress who don't, or won't, buy in.
I'm really curious about one thing right now, though. Will you try to defend the whole "It's harder to fire upper managers than it is to fire Congress." line? Or will you walk it back to something more realistic. I'm betting on your ego being too big to walk it back.
(BTW -- I'm with you on Romney. I think his type of executive experience lends itself extremely well to the type of things you need to do as President. I suppose we BOTH could be wrong about what type of skills you need to be President, though)
May speak to Romney's ability to woo the Independent
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
That is the definition of the Presidency.It's his JOB to work with the other side.
It's stunning that you think it's somehow different when a Republican is President. Not to mention the fact that the Democrats had control of 1) The White House; 2) The Senate and 3) The Congress for 2 full years of this administration. But it's GOP hostility that's holding President Obama back from creating jobs for everyone.
Good Lord.