An Appropriately Populist Anti-Bailout Rant

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich responded appropriately Sunday, when House and Senate leaders announced early a bipartisan agreement for a variation on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion (plus-plus-plus) bailout plan Wall Street.

Kucinich wasn't buying into the idea that everyone in Congress would climb on board for the bailout. "If the votes were there, this would be on the floor. The votes aren't there," Kucinich said Sunday.

Clearly, the congressman was not on board.

On the floor of House Sunday, Kucinich declared that:

The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?

Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls.

That Kucinich is spot-on comes as no great surprise.

When he bid for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, he spoke more consistently and more bluntly about the economic crisis than any of the other contenders.

Kucinich was not treated particularly seriously the media or his fellow Democratic candidates.

Now that Kucinich has been proven right, however, Barack Obama might want to pay attention to what the former mayor, state legislator and veteran congressman is saying.

He actually gets it.

Comments (179)

1. "Kucinich was not treated particularly seriously the media or his fellow Democratic candidates."

   Mr Nichols....

   if you could be objective for a moment....WHY is that?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 8:54pm

2. Something about flying saucers and being 5 foot 3 I would imagine, which is why no one will pay much attention now Mask.

   BBL there's an order of pad thai with my name on it and I'm on my lunch hour at work!

   Posted by yutsano at 09/28/2008 @ 9:01pm

3. Mr. Nichols,

   I would say Kucinich has some salient points. However, "helping homeowners directly with their burden" pauses one to think.

   I changed jobs and location at the worst time - 2005 - right around the peak of the housing bubble. In retrospect, we should have rented. Everyone knew the market was out of whack. But, we were eager to settle down into our own home. In the house hunting process, we were enticed again and again to buy a larger home by taking an ARM instead of a fixed rate mortgage. We wisely said no, because it seemed far too risky. We put in a healthy down payment on a house we could afford.

   I am a long term conservative. A friend at work, who is a long time social liberal, also bought at the top of the bubble and did all the right things. She is absolutely livid (spitting mad) that she, I, and others like us are going to have to bail out those "homeowners" who were risky and foolish. Again, she is an admitted (or confessed, in my view) Liberal. She has no patience for blatant stupidity. (I'm tempted to point out the non-sequitur, but I won't, cause I'm a nice guy.)

   Blame Wall Street and politicians far and wide. But I contend we also have no business using taxpayer money to bail out foolish people. There are a number of them in my neighborhood. I'm not my neighbor's Mama. He needs to be responsible for his own decisions and welfare.

   This reminds me, it's scary how many people buy cars beyond their means. Why are houses any different?

   Whatever we do, we should remember the importance of encouraging personal responsibility at all levels.

   Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 9:32pm

4. Now if only Kucinich had had the courage of his convictions and made an independent run at the presidency rather than falling dutifully in line behind Obama! The only difference between him and Ron Paul in this respect was that while Paul also wussed out of an independent run so as to hold on to his Congressional seat, he's had the courage to back Baldwin and not McCain whereas Kucinich has never had the moxie to support Nader. Much to much talk when it comes to Kucinich and that's been true of him since the Cuyahoga River caught fire on his watch as mayor of Cleveland back in the 1970s.

   But while you weren't looking, this den of thieves, on top of this $700 billion business, just passed $25 billion more for the Detroit automakers! Who could be surprized with "Bailout" Nancy Pelosi in charge. Just more of the same one party government. When in heavens name will it be that we can actually begin calling our governing bodies a Presidium instead of Congress. I mean, that's what we've got, something very much like a Presidium.

   Progressives should vote for Nader!

   Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 9:56pm

5. How did this happen? Kucinich?

   er, UNITARY EXECUTIVE/ petty dic'tatorship is what we truly have.

   Brought to you by the previous 12 years of a pervy new con repub congressional majority.

   Proof-- now dem congressional subpoenas go totally disregarded. Our DoJ is literally a political arm of the dic'tator-- essentially, a gestapo.

   Called it years ago and got poopoohed.

   Now there lots of poopoo on a lot of others' faces... aye!

   All congress can do is pretend to monitor the funds as they get transfered to the hsuB/cHeney base.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2008 @ 10:04pm

6. Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 9:56pm

   Boy, I know I am going to be glad when you evaporate on November 5th.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 10:33pm

7. done. now to get elected so we can do what has to be done without waiting til the last second.

   must get elected...

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2008 @ 10:38pm

8. JL You seem informed about this...

   Can you help me distinguish between "Progressive" and "Communist" and "Socialist" and "Liberal". I'm sure that my old Political Science professor would chastise me for forgetting the nuances. A certain habitual gravity (of words and deed) seems to draw these terms together for me.

   Communists in America, and I believe Europe, started calling themselves "Progressives" after Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev denounced Uncle Joe. As I understand, in that period the term "Progressive" provided cover, as it allowed one to be a communist without the chronic stigma of being a Communist. (My source for this is a former member of the American Communist Party) I'm sure it is different now.

   Is there a difference between radical 60's type Progressive and a Communist Progressive?

   Is Nader a "Progressive"?

   What flavor or progressive are you attempting to appeal to?

   I tried Wiki, but the Wiki page for Progressive was more confusing than helpful... Perhaps you could help by editing that site too. As is, it is a messy mass of wayward thoughts.

   Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 10:41pm

9. Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 10:41pm

   LOL....Joe McCarthy was a "critical thinker"?

   Bet you love Adam's Apple Annie Coulter, don't you?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 10:43pm

10. Mask Hmm, wasn't there a French swimming relay team that was talking smack recently.

    I seem to recall Mssrs. Gore and Kerry, along with the press, being rather cocky at this stage of the game.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 10:52pm

11. if you could be objective for a moment....WHY is that?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 8:54pm

    because reality is very scary.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 11:06pm

12. Whatever we do, we should remember the importance of encouraging personal responsibility at all levels.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 9:32pm

    of course.

    but when the government is borrowing TRILLIONS to "live" beyond its means,

    and businesses are borrowing BILLIONS to "grow"

    and states and cities are borrowing MILLIONS to "improve",

    what message does that send to someone who wants to borrow THOUSANDS in order to grow?

    total u.s. debt now stands at about 70 trillion dollaritos........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 11:11pm

13. and mr. kucinich's fine words are not a "rant"

    FACTS - TRUTH '08

    Cheaper Than Billions.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 11:12pm

14. cuticle thonker:

    "Well, you know, first, Fannie and Freddie, different because quasi-government agencies there where government had to step in because of the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with homeowners."

    "It's just too impacting, we had to step in there. I do not like the idea though of taxpayers being used to bailout these corporations. Today it was AIG, important call there, though, because of the construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG....But first and foremost, taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution to the problems on Wall Street."

    "Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American people. And of course, that is strong and that is the foundation of our economy."

    "Certainly it is a mess though, the economy is a mess. And there have been abuses on Wall Street and that adversely affects Main Street... It is, somebody was saying this morning, a toxic waste there on Wall Street, affecting Main Street. And we've got to cure this."

    COUNTRY FIRST!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 11:20pm

15. Mask,

    You wouldn't be working to get under my skin by attributing the concept of critical thinking to McCarthy. Would you?

    I recently heard an excellent podcast (Heritage Foundation) that addressed many of the myths that people believe about McCarthy. You may find it interesting. Even if you disagree with parts of it. It will help you hone your attacks on those wascally Wepublicans.

    You, as a liberal, wouldn't be denigrating someone (Ann) because of her appearance. That's a violation of the leftist code.

    Ann is Ann. She found her niche as a conservative shock jock. You will admit she is far easier on the eye than your prime shock jock - Michael Moore. (Come on now, even you have to admit I win this point.) Note, I provided my point with no insults about Michael Moore's appearance.

    Ann, in my view is less noxious than Keith Obermann or Rachel Maddow.

    Hey, I think Rachel is good looking I also think Ann is good looking. Now Keith - he even looks a bit, how do you Dems put it .... ah, yes... mean spirited.

    Wabbit Season! Donkey Season!

    Smile

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:29pm

16. "Whatever we do, we should remember the importance of encouraging personal responsibility at all levels."

    So, for instance, if you voted for Bush and other Republicans, then you should largely be paying for this economic mess, while those of us who did not should get paid well for not voting for these enablers. After all, we should remember the importance of voting, and encourage personal responsibility at all levels.

    Posted by onthehelm at 09/28/2008 @ 11:41pm

17. People smarten up fast when they can't feed their families; we had 40 years of liberals after the depression and the greatest middle class economy in history. People from that generation were smart and tough. They would have laughed trickle down economics, so called Christian Conservatives and preemptive wars, etc. -- off the face of the earth. Then along came the most pampered, apparently dumbest, generation in human history. Reagan doubles the debt in four years and funnels their future to the rich and they're cheering him on. He dumps on the unions and they think it's great. Now they wonder why they work 2 jobs at $7.00/ an hour without benefits.

    Folks, It's not the heat - it's the stupidity. Just look at an election map for the past two times. Look at the IQ of the red states vrs blue. The dumber the state the dumber the candidate. Palin makes an ideal VP for McCain, because maybe he isn't quite dumb enough to appeal to the base (Bush of course had no problem). McCain however was fifth in his class at the academy – well from the bottom that is. But there were four dumber out of about 900. Kucinich is at a tremendous disadvantage.

    You "soft in the heads" who voted for Reagan and Bush people do rightfully do blame you.

    Posted by uwakeup at 09/28/2008 @ 11:42pm

18. Frosty,

    Nice name change humor.

    Point taken. Scale is important. Bigger fish.

    But lots and lots of schools of the little fish add up too.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:46pm

19. Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 10:41pm

    Well, you obviously didn't search for that Wiki page too hard, since the page for "progressive" is a disambiguation page to send you to the appropriate page for your meaning (since the word progressive, like the word conservative, has several meaning depending on context.) Here's the page link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive

    Since you obviously know this is a political matter (and thus your questioning Progressivism's relations to other political philosophies in your post) the next obvious thing for you to do is scan to the first topical category presented, which is (lo and behold) politics, with the very first listed page being the one for "Progressivism, a political movement/ideology with origins in early 20th century America" at this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

    On that page, of course, is a full and clear explanation of Progressivism as a political philosophy, both historical and current. There's also a handy section comparing it to other political philosophies. Indeed, it pretty much gives a basic primer of the progressive movement and it's relations to American politics.

    All this you might have found if you had but one tinge of critical thought about you. But alas, it seems that you show a remarkable lack of even the most basic research skills for one claiming the title of "CrtclThnkr."

    Posted by Stwriley at 09/28/2008 @ 11:52pm

20. onthehelm

    I think if you keep reading, you might find ample evidence that a good part of your enemy is on your side of the fence. Don't get defensive, they're over on my side too.

    The span of culprits is very broad.

    If we oversimplify this and turn a blind eye to either Republican or Democrat malfeasance, we're going to prolong the problem.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:59pm

21. onthehelm

    I think if you keep reading, you might find ample evidence that a good part of your enemy is on your side of the fence. Don't get defensive, they're over on my side too.

    The span of culprits is very broad.

    If we oversimplify this and turn a blind eye to either Republican or Democrat malfeasance, we're going to prolong the problem.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:59pm

22. onthehelm

    I think if you keep reading, you might find ample evidence that a good part of your enemy is on your side of the fence. Don't get defensive, they're over on my side too.

    The span of culprits is very broad.

    If we oversimplify this and turn a blind eye to either Republican or Democrat malfeasance, we're going to prolong the problem.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:59pm

23. onthehelm

    I think if you keep reading, you might find ample evidence that a good part of your enemy is on your side of the fence. Don't get defensive, they're over on my side too.

    The span of culprits is very broad.

    If we oversimplify this and turn a blind eye to either Republican or Democrat malfeasance, we're going to prolong the problem.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:59pm

24. That repeat was not intentional. Not sure why the post stuttered like that. Strange gremlins?

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 12:02am

25. Still, Mr. Paulson can choose to buy from any financial institution that does business in the United States, or from pension funds, with wide discretion over what he will buy and how much he will pay. Under most circumstances, banks owned by foreign governments are not eligible for the money, but under some conditions, the secretary can choose to bail out foreign central banks.

    Under the bill, the Treasury is to buy the securities at prices he deems appropriate. Mr. Paulson may set prices through auctions but is not required to do so.

    creepy.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:11am

26. One of the most important decisions the secretary will make is the price the government pays for securities. Here again, there is wide discretion. He is directed to "make such purchases at the lowest price" that is "consistent with the purposes of this act."

    Those purposes, however, are expansive and leave him room to pay well over the lowest price available if he wishes to do so. The act is designed to "restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States" and protect homeownership, home values and economic growth. If he concludes that a higher price is needed to provide stability in the financial markets, that is evidently acceptable.

    merry christmas, america.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:13am

27. Most of Kucinich 's questions make a lot more sense than other's I've heard raised. It reminds me of the lead up to the Iraq war. People got so rabid about common sense questions they now wish they'd considered.

    Posted by uwakeup at 09/29/2008 @ 12:19am

28. Section 122.

    Increase in the Statutory Limit on the Public Debt. Raises the debt ceiling from $10 trillion to $11.3 trillion.

    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/fi

    nal_bill_section-by-section.pdf

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:22am

29. Stwriley

    You missed my point. My whole post was humor based. Tongue in cheek. It clearly didn't connect with you.

    Perhaps you may wish to reread my post, keeping in mind that the whole thing is cynical.

    I know what the Wiki site says, and how to navigate. I even know a little about the fuzzy nature of progressive "thought". But thanks for the lesson.

    To spell it out ... I contend, the Wiki Progressive pages are a "messy mass of wayward thoughts" because progressivism, liberalism, communism, and socialism tend to be a "messy mass of wayward thoughts".

    Now, as for your phrase... "...had but one tinge of critical thought about you"

    My, my! Why get nasty with me? Did I hit a nerve?

    This is just a blog. Feel free to disagree with me... and be wrong.

    Ooops, ... almost forgot... those last three words were intended to be humor too. (Even more mechanically stated - I was poking fun at you to make you laugh.)

    Smile darnit.

    Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 12:32am

30. by CartelThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 11:29pm...

    --your prime shock jock - Michael Moore.--

    Shock jocks are a big part of the problem... it is a medium that reeks of totalitarianism and reactionary innuendo. Almost all of them hail from the far right... and use 'tactics' that are predominantly also from the far right.

    As far as Joe McCarthy is concerned... My guess is that he was the equivalence of an early fifties "shock jock". How about a little quote from Edward R. Murrow...

    "His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. [...] We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully."

    And, during Eisenhower's campaign...

    In a speech delivered in Green Bay, Eisenhower declared that while he agreed with McCarthy's goals, he disagreed with his methods. In draft versions of his speech, Eisenhower had also included a strong defense of his mentor, George Marshall, which was a direct rebuke of McCarthy's frequent attacks. However, under the advice of conservative colleagues who were fearful that Eisenhower could lose Wisconsin if he alienated McCarthy supporters, he deleted this defense from later versions of his speech. The deletion was discovered by a reporter for the New York Times and featured on their front page the next day.

    Posted by ttr at 09/29/2008 @ 12:42am

31. To lvliberty

    That is without a doubt the most incomprehensible position switch in American politics I have ever seen. I can't explain it, don't understand it but am sure there is a reason. The reason can't be good. I have a lot of respect for Barney Frank. Why would he take such an undemocratic stand?

    Posted by uwakeup at 09/29/2008 @ 01:02am

32. To spell it out ... I contend, the Wiki Progressive pages are a "messy mass of wayward thoughts" because progressivism, liberalism, communism, and socialism tend to be a "messy mass of wayward thoughts". Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 12:32am

    Ok. There's a "fundamental difference" between yourself and your opinion and "the left" and theirs. I'm guessing you voted for the fools who brought us this current crisis, or rather, the long series of fools. Well take a look around. Congratulations republicans! Great fucking job!!

    I guess then, that it was that "commie" FDR that rescued us out of the last century's Major Economic Crisis, and that brought us the greatest period all-out economic strength in memory. The middle class(i.e., the consumer class) was large and supercharged, and we resultantly prospered as a nation.

    I'm thinking at some point relatively soon we'll be seeing Keynsian principles of the New Deal playing a major function in the reconstruction of our economy.

    We're very close to an ideological tipping point; a counter to the reagan revolution.

    Belie' dat!

    Posted by FcukReagan at 09/29/2008 @ 01:11am

33. I must admit that although I've despised the Republican House members as the saddest bunch of porked up windbags on the planet, their critical positions on the bailout were most succint and accurate. They also had the right amount of indignation. True they want to get re-elected but don't the Dems?

    Posted by uwakeup at 09/29/2008 @ 01:17am

34. Either side can capitalize on this situation. The dems get their way and we've nationalized a huge segment of our financial sector and write their own rules. Reps win and we get more deregulation and wealth redistribution (up). Problem is, the right has the upper hand with Bush's veto power, regardless of whether the dems' have a majority congress. However, with an Obama victory and a freshly stocked democratic congress, dems should eventaully get their way in this. Still, for the time being I'm sure we'll see Pelosi and the "real" democrats (sorry Dennis) cave like always and sell the constituency down the river. Yep, that's where I'm putting my money.

    Posted by FcukReagan at 09/29/2008 @ 01:28am

35. Kucinich and Nader both tell it like it is, but neither one could get elected President.

    The House Republicans sure found religion at a late hour. Looks like a cheap trick to try and distance themselves from Bush. Too little, too late. They carried water for this administration for 6 years. This albatross is theirs and no last minute dog and pony show is going to change that.

    Posted by koroviev at 09/29/2008 @ 01:32am

36. To FcukReagan,

    Yeah, Their lack of balls is related to their realtionship with big money. With calls running 100-200 against this thing, what else can you conclude? I'm signing off for the night.

    Posted by uwakeup at 09/29/2008 @ 01:32am

37. We're very close to an ideological tipping point; a counter to the reagan revolution.

    Belie' dat!

    Posted by FcukReagan at 09/29/2008 @ 01:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Unfortunately, I think this depends on the kind of job Obama does. He's already got to fix Iraq and Afghanistan, and he'd better fix our economy too. Any you know the ranting right will be ALL OVER HIS SHIT from day one in office. He'll be waking a tight rope.

    I won't even bother hypothesizing of what McCain will do; it's irrelevant. He and Quailpalin are going to lose.

    Posted by FcukReagan at 09/29/2008 @ 01:39am

38. Kucinich and Nader both tell it like it is, but neither one could get elected President. Posted by koroviev at 09/29/2008 @ 01:32am

    The only ones with any fucking sense!

    Posted by FcukReagan at 09/29/2008 @ 01:43am

39. When our nation is being systematically "dumbed down" through TV, movies, Oprah, public schools, sports idolatry and by many other less obvious means, we have what we have ...and it will ONLY get worst. I hate to admit it, and I could care less if it sounds unpatriotic or pessimistic, the best of American History has been written and probabily quite some time ago. ( try the day Nixon resigned in disgrace.)

    Posted by time2act at 09/29/2008 @ 01:59am

40. Wouldn't one have to first strive for grace in order to recognize ones disgrace?

    But then again that's the obvious mistake-- new con repubs strive for disgrace as a virtue.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 02:31am

41. DK gets it right.

    But that doesn't mean he''l be paid any attention by Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd et al.

    DK has no money, hence in their ears he's voiceless.

    They will act as Robt Rubin advises. Rubin, he who dismantled Glass-Steagall, contributing greatly to this disaster. Yet another man from GoldmanSachs.

    Posted by sloper at 09/29/2008 @ 02:36am

42. Dennis Kucinich is right on the money (no pun intended) as usual.

    I did a little unofficial tinkering with my calculator yesterday. And it ballparked this. If the government was to buy out all the toxic paper, it would cost about 110 Billion as far as I can see. Then if you throw in about 40 to 50 Billion more for liquidity between banks who are afraid to lend to each other. Then you come up with about 150 to 160 Billion total. So what's up with the 700 Billion figure? We have already before this deal was even struck, already bailed out many of the major players..

    What am I missing?

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 06:01am

43. DK gets it right.

    But that doesn't mean he''l be paid any attention by Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd et al. Posted by sloper at 09/29/2008 @ 02:36am

    Dennis is a pariah and bad bongo's for any politician that wants to get elected or relected. He is the crazy fool in the tin hat. Can you imagine Obama saying: "I talked to Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders the other day and they really made sense." It would be political suicide.

    We live in a country where the people who speak the truth are laughed away with scorn.

    We live in a country where having a good education or a passport and being intelligent, concise and relevant are scoffed at as being "elitist".

    We live in a country that is through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole. A place where Morons rise to the highest office in the land. And the ignorant masses cheer them on.

    We live in a country where the hideously rich sit in their castles and laugh uproariously at how stupid everyone but them is.

    We live in a country that is in serious need of a good housecleaning..

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 06:41am

44. If the cons are going to borrow so much money from the communists, why not pass it directly to the consumer? $700,000,000,000 divided by 200,000,000 adults = something like $350,000 per adult. That pays off "bad loans", pays off credit card debt, pays off law school. Poof! credit is now available to those that need it as all of that bad debt is paid down. Then, the children of the borrowers get to pay back the Chinese, so that part stays the same.

    The con mantra for years has been let the consumer/voter decide how to spend their money, why not now?

    Because the cons have thrown out all of their basic tenants in the last few months. They have no "fixed convictions", as LRJONES would like to believe. Whatever scares the masses and enriches the few, they are for.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 07:34am

45. Guvt bailout of the "bestest" economic minds in the world (allegedly).

    WMD's of 2008.

    Be afraid of the losses incurred by the smartest guys in the room!! If we don't lower their taxes and reduce regulation they cannot function! Now that they have fucked up big-time, we have to lower their taxes and reduce regulation!

    What a crock of Stimpy!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 07:38am

46. Let's hear from JOMAMMA, LIVER, RIOKORESH, USC1 and all of the other neo-cons...

    Sing us a song about "free markets"...

    sing us a song about how "guvt manages best when it manages least"...

    sing us a song about "personal responsibility"..

    sing about how the good folks at Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros and WAMU are the "producers" of society

    sing out loud...

    sing out proud...

    then explain to us why now we have to borrow $700,000,000,000 to get us out of a borrowing mess!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 07:43am

47. I think Kucinich is right, this is communism for the corporate elite and poverty for the tax payers! The american working man & women are the true creators of wealth not the speculators and ceo's. CEO's just harvest the transcendant activity of the working folk and then sell the products they create for a higher return for themselves and pay the workers a miserly wage. But as alot of working folk can no longer afford to pay for their mortgage/debt product. Now the bankers who own the mortgages cant make any more profit from the working folk they will ask for communist bail outs from the state/tax payer to save their luxurious life styles. And inturn alot of the working folk will have their houses reposessed in order to get as much money back for the bankers. America needs people like Kucinich/Gravel to fight to restore democracy to the republic!

    Posted by Toolmaker at 09/29/2008 @ 07:56am

48. RE: chaoszen, Nice concise summary of the state of the (so called) union. A man make a gutsy statement, which picks up on the exact truth, a truth we should be desperately as a country reacting to because it may well have us eating dog food before we're done. And the response is utterly dumb: "oh was he abducted by aliens?, little green men?" Think of all the stupid, pathetic, things Bush has said like: "It is time mankind enters the solar system." His supporters don't even notice there's a problem - .."what's wrong with that?" they wonder.

    Posted by uwakeup at 09/29/2008 @ 08:01am

49. Do you really think this is about mortgages? When only 5-10% of mortgages are bad out of multiple hundreds of trillions, how are they causing banks to go bad? There is something else going on here. Look it up. Research this.

    Posted by bluberryln at 09/29/2008 @ 08:22am

50. I have opposed the bailout from the beginning.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/29/2008 @ 08:48am

    That's true...he did.

    Now, he won't go the full measure and say "A bail-out is socialism" and call the person who first proposed it a "socialist" (Dubya)...though he will say "Bush has disappointed me".

    Of course if it had been a Democratic President, he would have called him a MARXIST!

    So the partisanship is still there.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 08:54am

51. Our battered and powerless congress has now convinced itself that it's perfectly ok to get raped yet again-- as long as they can video tape the petty dic'tatorship doing it.

    Then of course they'll attempt to sell the video to us a la the CGI dic'tatorship version...

    Yep, same as: the election investigation, the secret energy deal investigation, the 9/11 investigation, the Iraq war intel investigation, the outing of CIA op investigation, the torture investigation, no-bid contract investigation, the spying on citizens w/out a warrant investigation,...

    Man, we could've had an impeachment, but nnooooo

    AW's, sometimes jello just isn't enough.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 08:56am

52. A foretaste of the type of police state tactics that can be expected under an Obama Administration:

    Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign's Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

    JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

    "St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

    "What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

    "This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson's thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

    "Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, w

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:10am

53. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 09:04am

    "That's partisanship."

    It has been my experience that MASK is perhaps the most partisan of all posters here. Issues mean little to MASK, it's all just a question of which side wins. MASK might as well be watching pro football and rooting for the team with the prettier colors.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:12am

54. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 09:02am

    Darin, as soon as Critical posts something ANTI-Republican due to his "Libertarian beliefs"....he can claim to "not be a partisan". I haven't seen it yet.

    Oddly...neither have you, yet you suddenly know this "new" poster and his idealism?!!?!??

    As for MY partisanship, I don't deny it. But I don't go by the moniker "CrtclThnkr" and imply that I'm a "critical thinker", when nothing resembling criticle thinking emerges from his posts.

    As for Hillary's inevitability, FRANK wasn't alone in that thinking before Iowa....80-90% of EVERYBODY here, including your fellow conservative JOMAM/MAASCH thought that. Or can I find a lot of MARYBRET posts saying things contrary to that conventional wisdom.

    and finally, speaking of "critical thinking...

    "and Obama's one-term disaster as President will usher in the election of Ronald Reagan's father."---Darin

    How is John "Jack" Reagan, who died in 1941, supposed to be elected President?!??!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:17am

55. THE SURGED HAS WORKED?!?!?!?!?!?

    a city dead,

    split in two,

    the victim's blood on me and you,

    and you say THE SURGE HAS WORKED.

    ≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥

    millions flung to distant lands,

    a little girl doing one night stands,

    to feed her mother's empty hands,

    and you say THE SURGE HAS WORKED.

    ≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥

    you can put a band-aid on a gaping gash,

    and fill the "enemy's" pockets full of cash,

    plus ignore you never found that stash,

    and insist THE SURGE HAS WORKED.

    ≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥

    but those who see beyond the hype,

    beyond the mindless warring tripe,

    we know your greedy-hearted type

    who insist THE SURGE HAS WORKED

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 09:18am

56. New con repubs dic'tatorship followers are a cancer that has metastasized in the very blood of our nation.

    We can no longer just cut them out; they're now imbedded in the money we're indebted to use.

    Any cure may very well kill us.

    But hey, where are our heroes:

    "They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 09:18am

57. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 09:19am

58. FACTS - TRUTH '08

    When Do We UnSurge?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 09:19am

59. It has been my experience that MASK is perhaps the most partisan of all posters here. Issues mean little to MASK, it's all just a question of which side wins. MASK might as well be watching pro football and rooting for the team with the prettier colors.----Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:12am

    "MASK, you have got WAYYY too much common sense to be hanging out with these people..."-----Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 05:53am

    BLOG | Posted 12/04/2007 @ 7:00pm Everybody Look What's Going Down by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    ROFL!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:19am

60. Issues mean little to MASK, it's all just a question of which side wins.-----Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:12am

    And wait a minute, PONTI....are you admitting that Obama is going to win!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:21am

61. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:19am

    Just calling it like I see it, MASK. You don't discuss issues here. Sorry, just an observation.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:27am

62. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:21am

    "And wait a minute, PONTI....are you admitting that Obama is going to win!?!?!?!?"

    Would you care to comment on Obama's use of Missouri's legal system to threaten people with jail when they write or publish things he finds undesirable?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:30am

63. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 09:18am

    "but those who see beyond the hype,

    beyond the mindless warring tripe,

    we know your greedy-hearted type

    who insist THE SURGE HAS WORKED"

    FROSTY, you wax fairly eloquent, nay poetic, in the extent of your ignorance. My hat is off to you, sir, perhaps the last person in North America to still claim that the surge has not worked. May reality never intrude on your refuge, my friend!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:32am

64. like-minded ideologues in the echo chamber you inhabit.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 09:11am

    The cancer has spoken...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 09:33am

65. ponti,

    the splurge "worked" because the sunnis were either chopped up or run out of town.

    sunni baghdad is empty:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080919074830.htm

    BAILOUT!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 09:39am

66. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 09:39am

    Never a silver lining without an even bigger dark cloud when it comes to the Bush Administration, eh FROSTY? Hopefully, someone will change the subject soon so you won't have to start counting potholes on Baghdad streets.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:45am

67. Everyone has cancer cells, but in most they're dormant.

    So knowing we can't totally eliminate the cancer that is the new con repub dic'tatorship following, how do we make them once again dormant?

    Will starving them them of their sustenance do it?

    And what is it that they feed on?

    Fear, ignorance, hate, greed, secrecy, controlling,...

    How do we minimize access to those?

    Adopting and maximizing their compliment.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 10:01am

68. ponti-You've already had your nonsense about Obama and threats shot down and Blunt is trying to divert attention away from Missouri's economic problems that have arisen during his time as gov.For some reason you believe that it is okay to put out ads that lie about Obama,but that Obama should not be allowed to do anything about it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:03am

69. The "Protect Our Taxpayers" bailout bill was shilled by Pelosi and Reid as addressing excessive CEO compensation (I know this doesn't mean anything really given the amounts of the bailout)for the first time in history.

    Way I understand it, any excessive compensation will be denied to a corporation in the form of inability to use the amount determined as excessive as a tax deduction or expense. Big deal as these corporations will be writing off bad debt as carry forward expensing for years to come. Secondly, I heard that the executive compensation "restriction" doesn't apply retroactively to corporations who have already paid their CEOs gross amounts, even though these institutions will receive bailout money. Third, the ability to capture the spread between payment for junk today and future value of junk is nonbinding - which makes it discretionary and subject to partisan bickering and lobbying in the future.

    This is protecting the American taxpayer?

    Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2008 @ 10:09am

70. Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:30am

    Tell you what PONTI, you answer MY question first (a bad habit you seem to have) and I'll discuss yours.

    Given your opinion of me is that "Issues mean little to MASK, it's all just a question of which side wins."....

    logically, it wouldn't make sense for me to support a LOSING side and therefore you seem to be predicting an Obama win?

    Yes?...or are you contradicting yourself?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:14am

71. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forced Fannie and Freddie to write bad loans so poor people could get houses. This caused an asset bubble in housing by artificially increasing demand. This attracted others to bid up demand as well. Then it came crashing down when the poor couldn't afford the houses the government demanded they get.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 08:55am

    On Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday, Ralph Nader said - and no offense, Darin, but I still trust him on issues like this - that poor folk who got housing loans under the CRA had the highest rate of mortgage re-payment of anyone, rich, middle class or poor. It wasn't the CRA and poor folks who caused this crisis, it was (a) a willful shift of the base of the economy from manufacturing to finance, no where more obviously than in New York City (thank you, David and Nelson Rockefeller), and (b) the deregulation of finance by the twin parties of Capital, the Democratic and Republican parties (with a few honorable exceptions).

    There was an excellent piece in Harper's a few months ago about how a finance-based economy NEEDS bubbles, and essentially goes through the business cycle on crack, speeding through each bubble and crash and racing on to the next one. While this might be the logical conclusion of capitalism, that doesn't mean it HAS to be the way of the world. Historically, in economies based on the manufacture and trading of goods, a bubble and crash was seen as a terrifying thing to be avoided at all costs, and the economy was consequently regulated to prevent their regular occurance. Not anymore, so we get the dot.com, telecommunications and real estate (it ain't just housing, folks) bubbles bursting within 10 years of each other. Madness!

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 10:31am

72. fannie? freddie?

    poorly run monsters.

    the problem, nah................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 10:39am

73. Whatever we do, we should remember the importance of encouraging personal responsibility at all levels. Posted by CrtclThnkr

    but not for a repub administration, right?

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 10:39am

74. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:03am

    "okay to put out ads that lie about Obama,but that Obama should not be allowed to do anything about it."

    Never has there been censorship without willing apologists for it. Sigh.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 10:40am

75. ponti-No one promoted censorship or apologized for censorship nor were you able to show that censorship is happening.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:45am

76. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:45am

    By rationalizing the use of the legal system by the Obama campaign and it's partisan allies for the purpose of silencing critics, it is you who are rationalizing censorship, my friend. The fact that you choose not to be aware of it does not excuse that.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 10:48am

77. ponti-You,still,have not shown that censorship is taking place.You have only shown that you believe that the NRA and others should be allowed to lie and that no one should be allowed to pursue legal means to stop those lies from being spread.It is not censorship to use the legal system to stop what is considered to be slander.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:55am

78. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:55am

    "You have only shown that you believe that the NRA and others should be allowed to lie and that no one should be allowed to pursue legal means to stop those lies from being spread.It is not censorship to use the legal system to stop what is considered to be slander."

    You are an apologist for censorship, IM. No campaign has ever used prosecutorial powers of the government to silence critics, and yet here you are defending it. You're disgusting.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 10:57am

79. ponti-You,still,have not shown censorship.You just repeat that I'm an apologist for something that you can't show exists.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:00am

80. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:55am

    As the governer of Missouri points out, IM, people have been lying for years about political opponents. I could point out that the left is one of the biggest offenders on this point, but you would not agree with me, of course. What is indisputable is that the partisans of the Obama campaign are the first to employ the use of their political positions to quash opinions with which they do not agree.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01am

81. BTW, I'M NOBODY....you're doing it again.

    Ponti wants to drag the discussion off into his Limbaugh Letter talking point...

    and you're helping him.

    It's why he changed the subject when I pointed out his CONTRADICTION!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01am

82. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01am

    "It's why he changed the subject when I pointed out his CONTRADICTION!"

    God forbid you should have to discuss an actual issue, MASK.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:04am

83. if we truly encouraged personal responsibilities, Bush, Rice, Cheney Rove and Rumsfeld et al would be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 11:05am

84. ponti-I see that,like most of you on the modern right,that you lack reading comprehension skills.I have stated multitudes of times that both sides do the same things.The fact that you accept lying during campaigns does not mean that such lying is good and that no one should be allowed to put an end to as much as possible.Nor does trying to put a stop to lying constitute censorship.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:06am

85. In ponti's world a conviction is not the result of wrongdoing, and an ad on TV, or statment put out by Blunt, is fact. In his world Dan Rather is more of a danger to the US than Curveball, chalibi and childishly forged Niger documents combined.

    In his world a statement made by somebody that has not been in guvt for 20 years carries the same weight as that of the current republican appointed CIA director.

    In his world ethnic cleansing done by his allies in Baghdad is better than ethnic cleansing done by Saddam Hussein.

    and apparently the $700,000,000,000 bailout is the fault of the 2% of people that have defaulted on loans, not the fault of the smartest economic minds in the world that controlled the other 98% of loans that are being paid.

    Refreshing sugary flavored beverage anybody?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:09am

86. Mask-I discuss what I want to discuss and don't see any big reason why Ponti would want to change this subject.I live in Mo and find it to be more relevant to debunk his nonsense than to discuss a bailout with him since I doubt that he knows anymore about it than I do.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:11am

87. Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:09am

    "Refreshing sugary flavored beverage anybody?"

    No thanks, never touch the stuff. I see you've got plenty on hand, however.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:11am

88. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:06am

    "Nor does trying to put a stop to lying constitute censorship."

    So you think it's ok for partisan officials in the government to step in with the full force of the government whenever they feel their opponents are 'lying'? You really suck, IM.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:13am

89. ponti-No.I believe that people have the right to pursue legal action if they feel that they are being publicly lied about and the vast majority of America agrees with me.In fact,the vast majority of America is tired of the lying ads,but you aren't tired of them because you support those who are lying,which does not say much for you..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:18am

90. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:18am

    "ponti-No.I believe that people have the right to pursue legal action if they feel that they are being publicly lied about and the vast majority of America agrees with me.In fact,the vast majority of America is tired of the lying ads,but you aren't tired of them because you support those who are lying,which does not say much for you.."

    So, you think if government officials feel that their opponents are lying about them, they should be free to use the government to prosecute? Thus, if George Bush feels you are lying about him, you think it's okay for him to prosecute YOU?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:21am

91. So you think it's ok for partisan officials in the government to step in with the full force of the government whenever they feel their opponents are 'lying'? You really suck, IM.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:13am

    Have you ever heard of libel laws? If it can be shown that Obamas opponent had malice in mind, and they meet this standard:

    "Defamation occurs when one's words reflect negatively upon another person's integrity, character, good name and standing in the community and those words tend to expose the other person to public hatred, contempt or disgrace. Coots v. Payton, 280 S.W.2d 47, 53 (Mo. 1955). Defamation includes both libel and slander.

    A. "Slander" is defined as the speaking of defamatory words.

    B. "Libel" is a defamatory publication expressed in either printing or writing or by signs or pictures. Broadcasting is considered libel because of the widespread dissemination of the defamation.

    ...then Obama has EVERY right in the world to use the guvt system to gain redress. If he is wrong, then a judge will throw out the case. that is how the System is supposed to work Why do you hate america soo damn much?

    ( you have a little grape on your "mustache", BTW)

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:21am

92. ponti-If I put out ads that Bush can show are lies then he should be allowed to pursue legal action to stop me.It does not matter who is being lied about in an ad,gossip magazine,etc.If you are publicly lying about someone then that someone should be allowed to pursue legal means in order to stop you.Of course,you know that and are getting silly and desperate because your propaganda was shot down.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:26am

93. [D. The Supreme Court of the United States' decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its progeny, require that a statement of and concerning a "public official" or a "public figure" must be made with actual malice in order for the plaintiff to prevail in a libel action.

    1. "Actual malice" means making a statement with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false. It does not mean hatred or ill-will in the ordinary sense.]

    ------

    "The fundamentals of our economy are sound."- the candidate and president supported by pontificus two weeks before a $700,000,000,000 bailout is requested by the conservative president supported by Pontificus.

    "We have found the WMD's"- Pontis president

    "We were never stay the course"- same guy

    "No other country celebrates Thanksgiving"- Ponti himself

    "George bush has never lost a court case"- ponti

    "Valerie Plame was not covert"- Ponti

    "Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative"- CIA, DOJ

    who ya gonna believe? Which sugary flavored drink do you prefer, Kool-aid or the store brand?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:29am

94. Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:21am

    CRAB - libel is a civil action, not a criminal one. You're talking apples and oranges, you don't even seem to understand the issue here.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:29am

95. ponti-It is you who does not understand the issue and are being partisan and ludicrous.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:30am

96. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:26am

    "ponti-If I put out ads that Bush can show are lies then he should be allowed to pursue legal action to stop me."

    No wait, here. There's no 'proof' involved here - it's entirely up to the prosecutor's discretion whether or not to take up a case, using the full force of the US government. Thus, he can take you to court - and bankrupt you - based only on the presumption that he THINKS you're lying. This is before you ever even get to the point where you can 'prove' you're innocent. This is what you're in favor of?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:32am

97. ponti-You failed to make your case and are now stretching things to the point of the ridiculous...Got anything related to the topic?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:36am

98. Is this your outrage du-jour Ponti? Rush told you to be upset over this so you can ignore the 700 Billion dollar nationalization of the banking industry in the free mkt USA?

    Hey, do you have any of Palins stances on issues yet, or will you "get back to me on that"?

    Maybe Obama should say he will cooperate with any investigation, then tell his minions to ignore subpoena.

    buwahahaha. Palin! Vote for her Ponti, she will keep you safe from AQ and the evil leftists from Sweden/Cuba! HAR, she couldn't even stand up to Americas Sweethearts deep questions! Yep, right person for the job, no doubt!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:36am

99. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:36am

    Good luck basking in your ignorance, IM. You're plainly out of your depth here.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:38am

100. Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:36am

     "Is this your outrage du-jour Ponti? "

     I'll take your refusal to discuss the subject anymore as a concession of the point, CRABBIE.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:39am

101. oooh, the MO opponents of Obama had better hope they don't come before "activist judges",

     70% + of circuit and district judges were appointed by republicans!

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:42am

102. Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:04am

     And I said, I'd happily discuss "the issue", PONTI...

     if you answered MY question first.

     You still haven't.

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 11:47am

103. Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:42am

     Ah. Criminal prosecution of political opponents deemed to be 'lying'!

     Change we need!

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:48am

104. What would you like to discuss, Ponti?

     If Obama thinks that he has been slandered, does he not have the right under US law to attempt to redress the situation?

     As this blog is about the socialized bailout and nationalization of the banking industry, I think maybe it is you who is attempting to change the subject, no?

     ---

     Good luck basking in your ignorance, IM. You're plainly out of your depth here.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:38am

     Like we were out of our depth in the Plame debacle, the WMD's, Sadams links to AQ, the firings of JD employees and the use of political ideology in the hiring of civil servants, the missing billions in Iraq, and the questioning of Palins "experience"?

     Yep, nothing but good governance the last 8 years. Good governance, for the people.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:48am

105. Picture the aged and increasingly senile WW1 vet... homebound and sedentary in his long awaited retirement... playing out tabletop battles in miniature with toy soldiers... and spending a great deal of concern on making them seem realistic...

     But... having little awareness of and thus no concern for what is actually happening in his country and around the world at this point in time... is convinced that his 'take' on his 'impending crises' is accurate, well informed, and worth listening to.

     Both the left and the right are in uncharted waters on this issue... and anyone acting on the reflex of self interest... is an accident waiting to happen... without the proper respect given to the 'human condition'.

     Congress is being bullied... and the US citizenry is going largely unrepresented... to the party being given in honor of its own deflation.

     Posted by ttr at 09/29/2008 @ 11:49am

106. Ah. Criminal prosecution of political opponents deemed to be 'lying'!

     Change we need!

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:48am |

     I understand your reluctance, as in your opinion The Left is more guilty and stands to lose more.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 11:51am

107. I could point out that the left is one of the biggest offenders [lying] on this point, but you would not agree with me, of course.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01am

     sarah palin is qualified!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 11:53am

108. ponti-I am,obviously,not out of my depth here and the reason you responded with something that ignorant is because you know that you failed to make your case.You believe that your side should be allowed to knowingly lie and that no one should be allowed to pursue legal action to stop them.You have not presented one fact.You gave us a failing governors opinion.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:57am

109. hey, i've figured out mr. biden's strategy for the debate.

     say nothing.

     heheh.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 11:58am

110. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 11:58am

     We can only hope, as it would be a good change.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 12:03pm

111. it may just be a coincidence, but the amount by which the richest 400 families in america have increased their wealth since 2000 equals almost exactly the cost of the proposed bailout ("more than 670 billion dollars," according to senator bernie sanders). why not tap them for the loot? i seriously doubt being sent back to their december, 1999 financial state would seriously effect their lifestyle, & it could be considered a thank-you note to the economy that has made them so ludicrously rich.

     Posted by Jason Rhodes at 09/29/2008 @ 12:10pm

112. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 12:03pm

     I see. I was confused (PONTI'll leap on that), I see where you're coming from.

     Well, LVLIB is an even BETTER example.

     First, because he's MUCH more ready and willing to call out ANY Governmental domestic spending as "socialism"...but when I asked him if that meant that now Dubya (with the bail-out plan) was a "socialist"....he dodged the question. Where as he would NEVER had done so with a Democratic Administration and you know it.

     Plus, here's a guy who declares that the Iraq war MUST be fought and we must "pay any price, even if it empties the treasury" to fight it and win it....

     but when asked "Okay, so given that, you'd approve raising taxes to do so?"....suddenly ABANDONS the "dire urgency" for Milton Friedman economics and "Oh, we can spent trillions in debt and it's no big deal. A tax increase would slow the economy and we can't risk that!"

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 12:17pm

113. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 12:09pm

     So, you're not going to have any objections to Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan then are you....given how great things are going?

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 12:20pm

114. darin,

     enjoy the million dead souls on your shoulders..........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:21pm

115. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:21pm

     "enjoy the million dead souls on your shoulders.........."

     I'll see your imaginary 1 million, and raise you two million.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 12:23pm

116. Darin, still waiting to read why, if this bailout is such a good deal for us taxpayers, the private sector is not stepping up.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 12:30pm

117. Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 12:23pm

     How many Iraqis have been killed by sectarian violence, american strikes since March 2003? do you have a number? Does it matter to you?

     Or would you like to discuss Obamas slander issue?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 12:37pm

118. i only wish you could raise the dead, ponti.

     oh well, they're only brown people.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:40pm

119. Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

     The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?"

     The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never.

     People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:41pm

120. BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sunday. (CNN) -- Several bombings across Baghdad killed 34 people Sunday -- the bloodiest day in the capital during this holy month of Ramadan, an Interior Ministry official said.

     A roadside bomb exploded near an Iraqi army patrol near a restaurant in western Baghdad's al-Mansour district.

     Also Sunday, in Iraq's Diyala province, at least four people were killed and 17 others wounded in several attacks, a security official in the province said.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:45pm

121. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:41pm

     Well, we should play a game of Ponti or Palin to see who lacks the most clues.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2008 @ 12:45pm

122. We shouldn't look as this as a bailout for banks but a transfer of debt away from private CEO's and bankers to public accounts. This will protect the bankers and CEO's from having growing debts on their books and transfer it to tax payers where the debt will grow.

     Posted by Toolmaker at 09/29/2008 @ 12:50pm

123. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds

     THAT is a true american hero.

     go get 'em marcy!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:53pm

124. and no offense, Darin, but I still trust him on issues like this - that poor folk who got housing loans under the CRA had the highest rate of mortgage re-payment of anyone, rich, middle class or poor. It wasn't the CRA and poor folks who caused this crisis, it was (a) a willful shift of the base of the economy from manufacturing to finance,

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 10:31am

     Does that make sense to you? That the poor have better credit than anyone? That they repay at higher rates than the rich? If that's so, why do they need government to help them in the first place?

     Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 12:13pm

     I don't have the details, although I'm sure they can be found on the web, perhaps at Nader's site, but this is a perfect example of the free marketeer's recourse to abstraction when the real world doesn't conform to their "laws" of economics.

     In the abstract, Darin, no it doesn't make sense that a greater proportion of a certain group of poor people are able to pay off their mortgages at a higher rate than the rest of us. But based on experience and real world evidence, I would guess that the folks benefitting under the CRA got the necessary assistance, with incentives, to keep up their payments.

     As for the rich, haven't we all seen too many examples of rich folk acting like the law (and contracts) don't apply to them?

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 1:01pm

125. We shouldn't look as this as a bailout for banks but a transfer of debt away from private CEO's and bankers to public accounts. This will protect the bankers and CEO's from having growing debts on their books and transfer it to tax payers where the debt will grow. This is corporate stalinism at its worst!

     Power to the children, for it will enslave their futures!

     Posted by Toolmaker at 09/29/2008 @ 1:04pm

126. And you cause the shift willful. Who's will? What is the name of the person who decided that the US would shift from Manufacturing to finance?

     More likely, it was individual business owners realizing that they could not manufacture widgets competitively here. And other individiuals, who found the human resources then needed to expand their financial businesses here.

     Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 12:13pm

     In the case of New York City, it was David and Nelson Rockefeller. As for the rest of the country, I'm not sure who lobbied for the laws and regulations that encouraged the off-shoring of manufacturing, but even as unions were crushed here at home throughout the 80's and wages stanated for 30 years, our rulers relentlessly shifted manufacturing overseas to take advantage of low wages enforced by corrupt and dictatorial governments, while their lackeys - Bill Clinton among them - blathered on about high skill, high wages jobs, nevermind that the greatest job growth was in low-paid services. And finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) became king.

     It may look like an invisible hand, Darin, but they don't call the government the executive committee of Capital for nothing. And the Federal Reserve might very will be the Politburo of government economic policy.

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 1:11pm

127. What I don't understand is Paulson now claims he WILL ONLY SPEND $50 BILLION PER MONTH OF THE $700 BILLION!

     If that really is the case, why not give him $50 billion subject to Congressional review every 30 days for another $50 billion?

     The max he could spend is $200 billion until the next president takes over, and if we don't like what we see in any 30 day period, cut him off!

     Where is our common sense?

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 1:14pm

128. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 12:09pm

     Yet another corner has been turned! Thank God for that, maybe after a few more we might be right back where we started - if we don't count all the dead people, suffering, debt and so forth.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 1:23pm

129. I'd vote for someone that believes in flying saucers over someone that believes they need charms against witchcraft any day of the week.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 1:25pm

130. But don't forget, Carter saw UfO's too.

     Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2008 @ 1:57pm

131. darin-One only has to listen to Palin on the Couric and other interviews to know that she is clueless.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 1:59pm

132. I'd vote for someone that believes in flying saucers over someone that believes they need charms against witchcraft any day of the week. Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 1:25pm

     Haha. Hey man. Those witches are standing in the way of Palin and Bush. We need to cast them out of this country so they can stop casting their dark spell on our economy and our wars.

     How do we find them?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2008 @ 2:01pm

133. darin-No lies have been told by the left concerning Palin and I want more in a VP than the ability to walk and chew gum.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 2:05pm

134. Nancy Pelosi and Hoyer should resign with all of the Democratic House leadership--PERIOD.

     Congressional offices are reporting calls running 100 to 1 against, and the fact that anyone would vote for it show just how deep Wall Street has it's claws into the Democratic Party. If they cannot stand with the people who pay the bills and sent them to Washington then representative democracy is dead as it stands.

     Posted by NoPCZone at 09/29/2008 @ 2:08pm

135. nopczone-Most of this batch of dims only know how to give Bush what he wants and are for sale.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 2:10pm

136. In the abstract, Darin, no it doesn't make sense that a greater proportion of a certain group of poor people are able to pay off their mortgages at a higher rate than the rest of us. Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 1:01pm

     My guess is it was just Nader saying something he wanted to be true. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 1:56pm

     Oh come on, Darin, this is beneath you. Whatever one might think of Ralph Nader's political actions, where is the evidence in his record that he would just make up a statistic because he wishes it were so?

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 2:27pm

137. Kucinich was right. they don't have the votes.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 2:34pm

138. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 1:54pm

     Okay, so when Palin told Katie Couric (after a question to name ONE John McCain economic reform)....

     "I'll have to get back to you on that."...

     was just a ingenious ploy to make herself LOOK dumb?!?!??!?

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 2:35pm

139. I'm not sure who lobbied for the laws and regulations that encouraged the off-shoring of manufacturing,

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 1:11pm

     Those would be the congressmen who voted for high corporate taxes.

     Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 1:58pm

     Please. With their lawyers' ability to find loopholes in the tax code, corporate taxes are a joke for most big companies. Low wages, minimal or no workplace safety and environmental regulations, and an "absence" of trade unions (because their organizers are killed, the plants shut down at the mere hint of organizing, or only company or government unions are allowed) are what has driven offshoring, just like low unionization rates and cheap labor continues to draw manufacturing to the U.S. South.

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2008 @ 2:37pm

140. Mask-Let's not go into her claim of having foreign policy experience because she lives close to Russia.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 2:38pm

141. BAILOUT FAILS!

     13 votes short.

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 2:46pm

142. This is the reason I voted for Kucinich, and the reason this life long Democrat is going to vote for Nader. The central fix for the economy is job creation. You do not fix an economy unless ordinary people can afford to buy goods and services. The "Middle Class" is the market! No jobs! No market!

     Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/29/2008 @ 2:49pm

143. This so like the run up to the Iraq War. No wonder lots were convince the Iraq was capable of sending a drone with anthrax or a radio active dirty bomb thousands of miles to the USA... A mushroom cloud will be the evidence-- and now it's a greater great depression.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 2:50pm

144. Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/29/2008 @ 2:49pm

     You mean you are REALLY voting for McCain, because that is what a vote for Nader "really is" if you fully understand the current political reality.

     If you like the last 8 years under Bush, I am sure you will like McCain and Palin even more.

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 2:59pm

145. Faux Spews now has McPOWhowmanyCARSMANSIONS polling at 39%...

     hsuB job approval averaging in the 20%

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 3:00pm

146. er, the DOW goes down 700 points, but the bill doesn't pass and it moves up to 400.

     Now it's down to 500.

     And it would be doing the same thing if there were no plans for a bail out or if there were 700B injected into the 100T's global trading there to be lost too.

     And the moral of this story.

     Same as the other story.

     Don't believe anything that comes out of a new con repub for dic'tatorship's mouth.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2008 @ 3:11pm

147. Kucinich does get it, unfortunately, he doesn't have the ball. I should have noted where it was that I either read or heard the analogy that the Press, specifically the 24/7 cable news channels, are like little kids playing soccer--all the can do is follow the ball, "Where's the ball? Whose got the ball? Gotta get the ball!" It's why they can spend days discussing lipstick on a pig. Here is a copy of my e-mail to Rep. Mazie Hirono: Please oppose the Wall Street bailout in its current form. The investment bankers should not be rewarded for their irresponsibility. If some sort of bailout is unavoidable, it must be one that protects the American people and punishes Wall Street. Yes punish, they should not be held unaccountable. Once this administration is out of power you will be able to get our economy back on track with a New Deal for the 21st Century: one that provides jobs, repair of our infrastructure, including a power grid that is built around renewable energy, and the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

     Posted by michaeld at 09/29/2008 @ 3:46pm

148. Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/29/2008 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you don' fix nothin' by throwin' yer vote away. be a man and vote for the lesser of two evils, and change the world.

     voting for Nader has never changed the world for the better. he's never been elected to nuthin'

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 3:51pm

149. I think Obama's election will do a lot for confidence in the markets.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 3:52pm

150. "Would you care to comment on Obama's use of Missouri's legal system to threaten people with jail when they write or publish things he finds undesirable?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 09:30am | warn this person"

     As usual, you have it wrong. As a Missouri paper reported <http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20080927/BLOGS09/80927018> "Yet a top Republican National Committee official admits the Democratic prosecutors from across Missouri 'haven't specifically said' they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama's behalf."

     These are people working for Obama on their own time.

     Of course, this is the flaw in your "methodology" of excepting right-wing blogs as holy write. I would also point out that some of the people responding to you (i'm nobody ) didn't think to check out the story either.

     Posted by brunowe at 09/29/2008 @ 4:02pm

151. Not to mention the flaws in my typing--"accepting" for "excepting" and "writ" for "write".

     Posted by brunowe at 09/29/2008 @ 4:15pm

152. Posted by brunowe at 09/29/2008 @ 4:02pm

     Can't blame PONTI TOO much, bruno.

     Rush and Beck and Hannity scrambling for ANYTHING positive (aka anti-Obama) they can salvage, as McCain's polling dips and the foreign policy debate was a wash at best and Palin's looking more and more like Tina Fey is NOT adding anything to the impersonation.

     So, from "Rush's stack of stuff" they come up with this "Obama trying to squelch free speech" crap and hope it sticks (or atleast gives their bloggers something to fire back with) and PONTI et al dutifully do it.

     But it's more a good indicator of how WEAK they are right now.

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 4:34pm

153. Mask, you've mocked the pacifists here for not admiting the surge worked. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 09:04am

     If there is any lies I would like to see finally die. This lie that the "Surge Worked" is close to the top of my list.

     The Surge Did Not Work. Firstly on the face of it, it did not work because the whole idea of the surge was to give the Iraqi's time to get their political act together. Time to "reconcile". They still have not done that. So the surge as a tactic failed to bring about the strategy of Iraqi Reconcillation.

     The reduction in violence, specifically against American Troops was the result of more than a few things happening at close to the same time:

     (1) The "Sunni Awakening" where insurgents were paid to turn their guns on al Qaeda in Iraq. Instead of coalition troops.

     (2) Muqtada al-Sadr issuing an order to stand down to the Mahdi Army and suspend all activities for a period of six months.

     (3) Ethnic cleansing had run it's course for the most part. With entire neighborhoods in Baghdad being sectioned off from one another into little walled enclaves. Separating Sunni and Shia.

     (4) The sad fact that Iraqi refugees had fled the country into Syria (1.2 million), Jordan (750,000), Lebanon (150,000) Egypt (150,000). The total is about 2 million refugees.

     These are 4 major reasons for the reduction in violence. There are more.

     But the fact is "The Surge" could have just been one single troop and the result would have been the same.

     The surge was a political tool for the Neo-Cons and nothing more.

     Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 4:58pm

154. The Surge worked better than any government program the Dems ever came up with. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 5:03pm

     If you are attempting to connect a piece of legislation that the Iraqi's passed last week concerning their election law's to the success of "The Surge" it wont work. You are grasping at straws.

     If anything, this only proves that the Iraqi's are capable of working towards their own solutions, as they have for thousands of years. It has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed "Surge", or any other purely political machinations of the fascists who are currently pulling the strings.

     Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 5:39pm

155. Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 5:39pm

     "It has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed "Surge", or any other purely political machinations of the fascists who are currently pulling the strings."

     woooooooo.....

     You are one messed up dude.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 6:40pm

156. Why are the truly honorable like Kucinich so easily dismisse3d by our illustrious corporate media? Why are they so easily made light of?

     Posted by lachatte at 09/29/2008 @ 7:04pm

157. Why are the truly honorable like Kucinich so easily dismisse3d by our illustrious corporate media? Why are they so easily made light of? Posted by lachatte at 09/29/2008 @ 7:04pm

     Because he isn't what most Americans want.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2008 @ 7:31pm

158. Darin, ask again...

     if "the Surge worked", then you won't have an complaints if Obama begins his 16 month pull-out upon inauguration, will you?

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 7:48pm

159. the reason why Kucinich gets ignored is that we are more like apes than we care to admit.

     animal behaviorists have noticed that apes ignore information provided by lower status members of their groups (i.e. location of food) even when that information has been proven more reliable than that provided by the apes in charge.

     by the way, Kucinich didn't say he saw aliens. He said he saw an object, in the sky, that he could not identify. It's kind of sad that moment of naievety was jumped on by so many people who didn't listen to what he actually said.

     Posted by maddox at 09/29/2008 @ 8:52pm

160. Darin,

     Clearly chaoszen and Maskdelta have all the answers for the art of warfare and the use of force.

     I know them both personnaly. I happen to know they have been invited to the Army War College to instruct General Officers on the ineptitude of Sun Tsu, Clausewitz, and Jomini.

     I'm surprized that you have not yet figured out that chao and Mask are of superior intellect, possess greater tact, display more class, and have more open minds than either you or I.

     Heed their words! They are masters of cause and effect. If they, Harry Reed, and Obama say the surge did not work, then the surge did not work.

     And quit talking up! You are going to make them mad and they'll make us go to the corner, put our heads down, and take a time-out.

     I hate time-outs!

     Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 8:55pm

161. Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 8:55pm

     I believe my sole comment has been on the FINANCING of this war/occupation?

     As a "critical thinker", I'm sure you can cite all the examples in the past where the US fought a "vital, civilization-defending war"....

     and cut taxes?

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 9:03pm

162. Hey "Critical Thinker" -Kudos to you (and your "liberal" co-worker) for buying houses 'within your means.' Good boy. BUT, how nice for you that you could afford anything at all. The moronic speculation & debt economy we are buried underneath means (for example) that the yuppies who bought my landlord's old house paid well over $550,000 for an older 1200 sq ft house with issues in a very modest neighborhood in Oakland, CA. When I lived there, in spite of a tight community of compassionate neighbors & strong neighborhood watch, the used condoms from hookers, dumped stolen vehicles & other issues were frequent on our cul-de-sac. In a culture that rams the idea of "real estate as a "surefire investment," and rentals often being a nightmare (esp. for those trying to raise kids) & sophisticated, oily real estate agents & loan (sharks) convincing everyone that "they can do it, just buy," why lay the blame solely on homebuyers? What in the WORLD makes you so sure that these foreclosing homes are all mansions? Those yuppies just had a kid. By the time she is ready to buy a house, what will the "value" of a 1200 sq ft home in a sketchy neighborhood be? A million? Two? Hey-- maybe minimum wage will have reached $10 an hour by then! We need to rethink housing on every level. We need to end speculating on real estate and oil. $20 million for WAMU's CEO for 17 days work? Time to sieze the assets of these criminals, the same way the assests of average criminals can be seized in civil court to compensate their victims' families. Greed kills, maims and impoverishes. The actions of the monied elite render the reason for the American Revolution void. Why replace a Monarchy with a Corporatocracy? If we were a monarchy, at least we'd have a castle to storm!

     Posted by NoGodsNoMaster at 09/29/2008 @ 9:28pm

163. Mask,

     I would beg to differ. Unless I missed the purely financial take on your post at 09/29/2008 @ 7:48pm.

     It would seem to me that you are arguing that a 16-month (not a conditions based) withdrawal is the right thing to do.

     No, in fact, I can not cite them. I'll make a mental note to see where that leads. (I hope this is not a faux pas. In these blogs, am I supposed to pretend like I have all the answers?)

     I do know that economic health and will power are critical aspects of warfare.

     Read Nixon's "No More Vietnams". He writes clearly. In the later chapters he does an excellent job outlining his failures to maintain public support and national will.

     Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 9:33pm

164. this is the problem with not helping the homeowners,every foreclosure brings down the value of the neighborhood, a foreclosed house that sells for 200,000 less than your house is disasterous.multiply that by 20 homes in your neighborhood. our system needs to be revamped so that home prices are truly affordable. in ca. a person making 25 dollars an hr. can't afford a home, that is wrong in a country as great as this. there should be a limit on how much profit a lender can make lending on a house.

     Posted by pubguy at 09/29/2008 @ 9:59pm

165. Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 9:33pm

     Oh, well, I was just AGREEING with the Right wing view, CT.

     Things are going so well with the Surge...that surely a 16 month withdrawal is possible, right?

     or are they not going THAT well???

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:05pm

166. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

     Could it be the Sadr cease fire worked? Or do we just want to live in surge fantasy land?

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 10:14pm

167. NoGodsNoMaster

     Excelllent post!! Agree with all. Good points.

     Oakland! In the 70's, once or twice a month I'd hop on a Greyhound to go see my Dad and Step-mother, who likely swept that same condum off the sidewalk in front of their hovel. They certainly would have swept fast, since you didn't want to be outside for any longer than you could help it. Big running kick back then. We'd run around Lake Merritt. My poor brother fell in once. He rode in the trunk (no safety Nazis in those days) to keep the car from smelling like duck dung.

     With respect to "What in the WORLD makes you so sure that these foreclosing homes are all mansions?" I don't believe I stated that. My point was that people need to live within their means - whatever those means are. And they, and noone else, have to take the greatest responsibility for their actions.

     Oakland is where I learned my lessons too. Expensive cars were all over that depressingly poor neighborhood. Meanwhile, my Dad and Step-mom saved every penny, cooked food from scratch including bread (because it was cheaper), bought my Christmas presents at Goodwill, and did not own a car for ten years. Entertainment was free... the runs around Lake Merritt, picnics in Golden Gate Park, and sunrises at Twin Peaks. After about 10 yrs of this they were able to move to a small apartment near the Embarcadero. In another 5 years they had moved into a great condo at Oprah Plaza (Van Ness). Again, modest jobs and frugal, sensible, spending.

     Personal responsibility and living within your means ... works. It is not a theory.

     Caveat Emptor is not a new idea. Some very old and very dead white guys came up with that one.

     Again, great post, I get your point.

     Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 10:17pm

168. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

     Oh, btw, Darin, I'll take a wild guess and say you probably have a six figure tax bill. But, your license to bitch was revoked as soon stared cheerleading the war. Instead, I think you should up the ante and show everyone how committed you are to the cause, even if it requires a 100 years and 80% of your income.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 10:17pm

169. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/29/2008 @ 10:54pm

     So explain again you buggy whip worker....

     why we still need to give churches tax-exempt status and not leave it to the "invisible hand"???? (quite literally...heheh)

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01pm

170. Mask, Regards your post @ 10:05pm

     OK. I may have misread the point you were making.

     In our current warfighting parlence, this process of getting a society back into working order is called Stability and Support Operations or SASO.

     Doing this right is very difficult. Many factors to consider, most of which are outside of our control. After the initial success in Iraq, we (Bush if you will) miscalculated a number of those many factors and blew the SASO phase of the mission. After a lot of efforts to correct course, we get Petraeus, the surge, and an effective strategy for counter-insurgency and SASO.

     Gaining stability takes time. There are inevitably ups and downs. It doesn't necessarily fit into an nice 16 month withdrawal election sound-bite.

     16 months may be right. It may be wrong. But you never want to telegraph a definiite time-table to an enemy.

     That is unless you are threatening him, and then you have to be willing to back up that threat.

     Not to repeat myself, but this also ties into the Nixon book I mentioned earlier @ 9:33pm. (No, this is not the only book I've read. But since I'm sure you have already ordered it, I thought it would be nice for you to save a little money --instead of referring you to one of the other three books I've read.)

     Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01pm

171. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=CrtclThnkr

     what nonsense, 16 months for stability? the war has been going on for over 60 months, wanna spend another 60 months there?

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 11:37pm

172. THINKER, look up what the professors at the Army War College had to say about the Iraq war circa 2004. It was not good news for Chimpy McFlightsuit.

     And, as a "critical thinker", could you show us poor lefties the stockpile of wmd's? And the connections between AQ and Saddam?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/30/2008 @ 08:01am

173. 16 months may be right. It may be wrong. But you never want to telegraph a definiite time-table to an enemy.----------Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01pm

     Oh? So when McCain was saying HE would have most combat troops out by January 2013....that wasn't a "definite time-table"?!?!?!?

     Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 08:51am

174. what nonsense, 16 months for stability? the war has been going on for over 60 months, wanna spend another 60 months there?

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/29/2008 @ 11:37pm

     Dead right Emile. Bob Woodward's "The Enemy Within" basically talks about generals in Iraq saying that Iraqi officials go about sending messages to their opposition by killing people in large numbers. That is the excepted way of politics there similar to Hussein's way of running things.

     We went striding into there like John Wayne to set things right and of course for oil, but didn't know what the hell we were doing.

     Now, it looks like we'll have to prop up another government similar to Egypt or perhaps Saudi Arabia where the people of Iraq are ruled with an iron fist so that our greed for oil can be semi-satisfied.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 09:19am

175. CK,

     It seems to me that those industries provide a great opportunity to make well above average income. So what is wrong with adapting to change. I certainly did after over 20 years in the manufacturing sector . You have to change or be left behind. Or you get stuck as an unemployed buggy whip worker.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/29/2008 @ 10:54pm

     lvl,

     It's one thing when a tiny nation like Singapore or Luxembourg essentially specializes in finance and insurance, or various Caribbean islands in finance and tourism, but it is thouroghly unrealistic for any nation from the size of Belgium on up to the Russian Federation to essentially write off the manufacturing sector of the economy.

     For one thing, as more than a few economic nationalist has pointed out in the pages of The American Conservative, for instance, hollowing out your industrial base leaves you ill-prepared for war. The U.S., of all countries, should take this lesson to heart given how crucial its industrial capicity was to the allied victories in both World Wars.

     Even more importantly, there will always be a portion of your population that will not get a college degree and that will be perfectly well-suited for factory work instead of office work or the service sector. It's one thing to ask buggy makers to become autoworkers, but to tell an autoworker to flip burgers or become a telemarketer is to tell him or her to take a massive pay cut. Multiply this by the millions and it severly impacts the Demand side of the curve.

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2008 @ 11:45am

176. In response to crtclthnkr who is adamant in bailout the homeowners Unless I am mistaken it is not about BAILING them out with taxpayers money, but HELPING them out so they can go back to the lender and negotiate a restructuring of their loan where the Lender takes a loss in return for lower payment and/or have a bankruptcy Juge restrucured the loan! I am not in that case. I bought 10 years ago a house for $310,000 and only pay $500 per month mortgage.

     Posted by Bailout at 09/30/2008 @ 12:02pm

177. In response to Chaoszen who wrote"

     "We live in a country where the people who speak the truth are laughed away with scorn. "

     Yes because as a nation of liars nobody likes to be told the truth about him or herselves.

     Posted by Bailout at 09/30/2008 @ 12:17pm

178. yutsano wrote re why Kucinich was not treated particularly seriously by the media or his fellow Democratic candiates:

     "Something about flying saucers and being 5 foot 3 I would imagine, which is why no one will pay much attention now Mask"

     That's the cover story; the real reason is that he's too honest and direct about what's really going on in this corrupt corporatist society.

     Posted by proevo24 at 09/30/2008 @ 6:49pm

179. In response to Chaoszen who wrote"

     "We live in a country where the people who speak the truth are laughed away with scorn. "

     Yes because we are for the most part a nation of liars which do not want to hear the truth about ourselves. When Kucinich bluntly tell it the way it is like we went in Irak to steal their oil...we go blank because most of us are for stealing other nation resources! What's our oil doing under their sand?

     Yes because as a nation of liars nobody likes to be told the truth that he or she is a liar!

     Posted by Bailout at 10/01/2008 @ 12:57pm