Treasury's "Battle With The Banks?" What "Battle?"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:50:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Atrios points to this strange Felix Salmon post about Treasury's incompetence and/or malfeasance regarding the mortgage crisis. What's strange about it is this line:

[I]n the battle of Treasury vs the banks, the banks — predictably — have won.

Ridiculous from Salmon - Geithner's Treasury has protected the banks from Day One (before Day One in Geithner's case, considering his outrageous actions on behalf of the banks as president of the New York Fed.)

Tim Geithner is a disgrace, and a disgrace that reflects on Barack Obama. If he loses reelection, what would most make his loss deserved is his acceptance of the malfeasance and incompetence of Tim Geithner. Obama has been unforgivable on that.

< Republicans' Phony Outrage at DEA Money Laundering Activities | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Treasury's "Battle With The Banks?" What "Battle?" | 161 comments (161 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, yes (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:31:25 AM EST

But, if somehow sympathy for Geithner in his terrible losing "battle" with overwhelmingly powerful wall street investment bankers can be generated, then he and Obama become underdogs, and everyone loves an underdog - as long as they can be confused enough to no notice that they were manipulated and conned.

Thus, Felix Salmon's post...

: But you'd have to be ... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Robot Porter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:01:54 PM EST

a special kind of stupid to fall for that. The kind of stupid that is still surprised when the ghosts in the umpteenth Scooby-Doo cartoon turn out not to be real.

Parent

Malfeasance in high office (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Towanda on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 12:02:09 PM EST

is d*mn serious. So please explain for me, seriously, because I just don't get it, how one can support re-election of a president who excuses (and even supports) malfeasance in high office?

i'm guessing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:02:40 PM EST

that the explanation will be "pols are pols, and do what they do"

Parent

But the question is, why vote for (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:06:54 PM EST

reelection of the Pres. who selected Geithner as Treasury secretary? (I know the answer, and it ain't pols are pols and do what they do!)

Parent

pols are pols and boo what they boo! (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:10:56 PM EST

Amazing how well that works... :-)

Parent

as in my reply to Towanda (none / 0) (#10)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:12:51 PM EST

(where i was channeling BTD), i'll channel BTD here too & say that presidential elections are choices between parties

i may be wrong about what BTD would (or will) actually say in response to your question and Towanda's, but these are things that BTD has said before

but of course i don't know what BTD would (or will) say today

Parent

Exactly. This seems a stronger (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Towanda on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:16:56 PM EST

statement, with the term malfeasance used by a lawyer, than I have seen before (but I may have missed it in past). Thus, I ask if it signals a shift in anything other than, well, just words. :-)

Parent

BTD has opposed Geithner (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:27:45 PM EST

for a long time.

I would bet a lot of money that BTD would never support a third party candidate or advocate sitting out.

Parent

: Perhaps Sunday afternoon (none / 0) (#59)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:00:19 PM EST

Margaritas have taken their toll.

Parent
: I'll bet $10,000 (none / 0) (#115)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:49:38 AM EST

but I'll need to find some financing first.

Parent

The answer is (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:12:00 PM EST

Obama is a Democrat and all the Democrats will vote for him irrespective of what he has or has not done.

He knows that. The Democrats know that.

And as long as each group knows that because it is true then there is no control over him.

Same goes for the Repubs.

Parent

But there is another group of voters (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Towanda on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:18:11 PM EST

neither Democrats nor Republicans.

What do you think that they will do?

They do matter. Maybe a lot.

Parent

: I assume you are referring (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:33:30 PM EST

to Independents, of which I am one.
I don't know. I am an Anybody But Obama. Simply put I will hold my nose and vote for whoever the Repubs nominate.

Parent

if you've been paying attention (none / 0) (#14)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:24:43 PM EST

here & elsewhere, then you know that not all Democrats will vote for Obama

of those who will not vote for Obama, few will vote for the Republican nominee, but many will vote third party or only vote downticket or just stay home

even in 2008, there was a segment of Democrats who did this - that segment may be larger this time, though of course the revulsion engendered by a Newt Gingrich candidacy could drive even reluctant Democrats to Obama in some swing states

Parent

There will be a very very small (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:29:48 PM EST

number of Democrats, and a very very small number of Repubs who will not vote for the party's nominee.

And I see that you are readying your excuse.

though of course the revulsion engendered by a Newt Gingrich candidacy could drive even reluctant Democrats to Obama in some swing states

;-)

Parent

excuse? (none / 0) (#17)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:31:12 PM EST

what do you mean?

explain, please?

Parent

Read your final paragraph of (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:35:08 PM EST

comment #14. I see that as you building yourself an excuse to vote for Obama.

Of course I could be wrong.

Parent

you are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:37:52 PM EST

i live in a deep blue state & have the luxury of voting third party, if i vote for president at all

i was simply sharing my take on what will happen next year

Parent

Actually I think we all have the luxury of (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:49:35 PM EST

voting for a third party.

Parent

But you'll buy the two party scam again, (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:06:10 PM EST

hold your nose, and vote for whoever the Repubs nominate.

They saw you coming.

Parent

Absolutely (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:35:30 PM EST

Because I remain hopeful that we can reform the system.

BTW - I asked for both you and Scott to select a problem and present a workable solution.

Cat got your tongue?

Parent

Problem: two party scam (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:46:16 PM EST

Solution: don't be a sucker

Parent

What a typical avoidance (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:48:11 PM EST

But not unexpected.

Parent

You don't like that solution? (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:49:34 PM EST

Parent

Edger, we both know that you are just (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:46:56 PM EST

playing games. You get your kicks on complaining, not fixing.

Parent

Afraid to say (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:48:31 PM EST

he supports a Nader or someone like him.....

Parent

: Or is a nihilist (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:16:08 PM EST

Parent

And that's (none / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:34:18 PM EST

Nader and those like him.

Parent

we have that luxury only if (none / 0) (#31)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:37:29 PM EST

(1) we live in a deep red or a deep blue state and/or (2) don't care which of the two major parties wins or loses

i suspect there are more residents of deep blue/red states than people who don't care about which of the two major parties wins or loses

Parent

My daughter (none / 0) (#83)
by Amiss on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:54:37 PM EST

is readying her excuse as"lesser of two evils" I think that excuse will belong to many who vote Obama. I dont know if I can do that again. So, I dont know what I will do this time.

Parent

You "could" get her (none / 0) (#86)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:00:47 PM EST

a bumper sticker and surprise her by putting it on her bumper for her. ;-)

Parent

: Who is NPA (none / 0) (#96)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:48:08 PM EST

running for President?
Someone less well known than Nader?

Parent

Aren't (none / 0) (#124)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:13:04 PM EST

you making excuses for yourself saying that you'll vote for a crackpot like Newt?

Parent

Most democrats (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:46:48 PM EST

will buy into the two party scam again. Same goes for most republicans.

And both of them will tell you it's because the other guys are 'scarier'.

Meanwhile, both republican and democratic pols will stand up there under the lights grinning at each other and at the 'marks' who will be told they must pay for their sponsors debts, while collecting money from their sponsors.

Parent

And yet (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by NYShooter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:56:35 PM EST

The reality:

The thought of the horror of a Gingrich Presidency...........

My anger at Obama for placing us into this untenable position is immeasurable.

Parent

And you know a republican (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:00:54 PM EST

will say:

The reality:
The thought of the horror of another 4 years of Obama...........
My anger at Obama for placing us into this untenable position is immeasurable.

Parent

Republican (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by NYShooter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:03:26 PM EST

and Reality?

lol

Parent

: heh. (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:07:12 PM EST

Parent

As the recent report discloses (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by NYShooter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:20:18 PM EST

this is bigger, much bigger, than we thought. 27 Trillion dollars (so far) bigger.

Geithner has friends in high places: Buffet, Rubin, and, of course, Obama. They may be members of the same gang, but there's no denying their power.

The takeover seems to have been complete.

Yes. And? (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:30:56 PM EST

Tim Geithner is a disgrace, and a disgrace that reflects on Barack Obama.

The conduct of the war in Afghanistan is a disgrace, and a disgrace that reflects on Barack Obama.

A.G. Holder is a disgrace. The rightward bent of his office is a disgrace.

The abandonment of the public option is a disgrace.

The abandonment of the Union Movement is a disgrace.

The abandonment of serious efforts to curtain carbon emissions is a disgrace.

The abandonment by the Democratic party of its principles is a disgrace.

All of the above reflects on Barack Obama.

So - what do we do about it?
Vote for him anyway?

Don't forget the targeted killing ... (5.00 / 5) (#24)
by Robot Porter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:56:52 PM EST

of a U.S. citizen who wasn't convicted of any crime.
Followed by much chest thumping and bragging about it.

The umpteenth extension of the completely unnecessary and mostly unconstitutional Patriot Act.

The completely unprovoked war in Libya with our bombs killing tens of thousands of innocents, many of those (as always) being children.

And on and on and on ...

I think "disgrace" is a charitable term.

Parent

I support what Obama did in Libya (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:00:14 PM EST

You say "killing tens of thousadns of innocents."

I do not believe that is accurate.

You of course opposed Bill Clinton's bombing of the Serbia?

Parent

Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:06:36 PM EST

Care to discuss rather than downratge.

Parent

You would be wrong ... (5.00 / 5) (#58)
by Robot Porter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:59:20 PM EST

The figures most commonly cited are 30,000 killed and 50,000 seriously wounded. And how do you think that happened? By some random AKs? Or from the ten of thousands of bombs dropped by us?

Of course, you can find some ridiculous people claiming we dropped 25,000 bombs and only killed 3 civilians and a poodle. But that's nonsense.

And of course I opposed Bill Clinton's bombing of Serbia, Iraq, various chemical plants and so on. As most of us on the left did.

But the Libyan War goes beyond those. It wasn't provoked, authorized by congress, nor did Libya threaten any of our vital interests.

Of course, they lazily tossed out some silly "Arab Spring" rational. (Even that were true the war would still be unconstitutional.) But most it was about stealing money and scuppering some oil deals (primarily ones with China) that the U.S. was unhappy about.

Parent

I would like a link (none / 0) (#62)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:17:06 PM EST

to a source for that.

The were running close air support missions--which were less likely to involve civilian deaths than the Kosovo/Serbia bombing which targeted civilian buildings.

There was also a lot of combat on the ground. If you are attributing all the casualties to the air campaign, that would be inaccurate.

I think Obama did well in Libya. France was a big part of the reason we participated. And, it appears that Hillary, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers really pushed for our involvement--they did not want to allow another African massacre, this time in Benghazi.

The Libya involvement was something that JFK would do. And, yes, he was a cold warrior.

Parent

So you completely ... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by Robot Porter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:38:15 PM EST

bought the propaganda.

How quaint.

Parent

So you say (none / 0) (#65)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:46:06 PM EST

Got a link.

Parent

Libyan NTC count as of September 8, 2011 (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:01:41 PM EST

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) -- At least 30,000 people were killed and 50,000 wounded in Libya's six-month civil war, the [Libyan] interim health minister said, offering a first detailed estimate of the high cost in lives of bringing down Moammar Gadhafi.
There have been rough estimates in the past, but Naji Barakat, the health minister in the new Libyan leadership, said his figures are based, in part, on reporting from hospitals, local officials and former rebel commanders.
Barakat said he'll only have a complete count in several weeks, but that he expects the final figure for dead and wounded to be higher than his current estimates.
[snip]
Of the estimated 30,000 dead, about half are believed to have been Gadhafi's fighters, Barakat said.
[snip]
The number of war wounded is currently estimated to be at least 50,000, including some 20,000 with serious injuries, but is expected to rise, Barakat said.

Parent

Thanks ... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by Robot Porter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:26:57 PM EST

I don't usually tit-for-tat with unpaid shills. But I do like to see them squirm in their attempts to defend the wanton killing of innocents on a massive scale.

Thanks for the assist.

Parent

It's always fun for 1 or 2 seconds (5.00 / 3) (#77)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:29:30 PM EST

watching them spraining themselves try to change the subject without, too. ;-)

Parent

: Did not change the subject (none / 0) (#82)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:54:35 PM EST

Which was how many were killed by the NATO bombing.

Parent

No squirming here (none / 0) (#80)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:52:32 PM EST

Your link undermines points that you made.

To say that there a tortal of 30,00o deaths does not address that the cite says that half of the dead were Gaddafi fighers.

And your cite does not discuss how many of the deaths were caused by the bombing--your point.

Parent

The thing I love about ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Robot Porter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:19:57 PM EST

unpaid shills is they don't care how silly they look. Or how ridiculous their arguments sound. As long as they're defending "their guy" all is right with the world.

Of course, this is what the power elite wants all of us to be. Obedient. Unthinking. Subservient.

In short ... pod people.

Thankfully, there are still some of us who haven't succumbed.

Parent

No, you have created your own (none / 0) (#98)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:03:31 PM EST

self-reinfording group think, right here.

You talk in generalities.....You have left Libya and my points regarding Libya.

Parent

You points are ridiculous ... (none / 0) (#120)
by Robot Porter on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 07:56:10 AM EST

and defy logic and common sense.

80,000 causalities occur over a matter of weeks, during which time (a) 25,000 bombs are dropped and (b) there are some skirmishes with small arms.

You believe that 80,000 causalities were largely caused by (b) rather than (a).

Huh?!?

It's a good thing Obama has friends in very high places, because he'd never win if he had to rely on arguments like these.

Parent

: Half of the deaths were (none / 0) (#131)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:20:42 PM EST

Gaddafi fighters--according to your own source.
And, yes, not all bombing is alike. These were close air support missions on tactical targets. True, some civilian casualties would result but not the wholesale numbers you mention.
Some skirmishes.....it was well beyond that.
You have cited nothing suggesting what the casualites were from the bombing.....This was not like Kosovo where all the casualties were clearly from the bombing--because there was no other combat on the ground.
And it was an ongoing war when NATTO became involved in Libya. Obama did not start or cause it.
I admire what Obama did in Libya--one of his better foreign policy successes.

Parent

Yes, but I seriously (none / 0) (#68)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:07:26 PM EST

doubt that all those deaths are attributable to NATO bombs. The nature of the missions would not lend themselves to that kind of casualties....

And, you have to take into account those who would have died in Benghazi.

Parent

Half of the dead were Gadhafi's (none / 0) (#69)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:13:38 PM EST

fighters.....

Parent

but... but... but (5.00 / 3) (#71)
by sj on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:30:02 PM EST

Clinton!

Parent

Address the point (none / 0) (#81)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:53:48 PM EST

Did you oppose the Kosovo bombing campaign--it was far more extensive and deadly than the NATO campaign.

Parent

: That's not a point (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by sj on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:29:17 PM EST

That's a diversion.

Parent

Yeah, cause the freedom (none / 0) (#70)
by me only on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:26:35 PM EST

fighters didn't kill anybody!!!!!

Parent

: War was ongoing (none / 0) (#84)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:59:12 PM EST

before NATO involvement.
The idea that the NATO bombing campaign caused thousands of deaths is unsupported.
The reference to "freedom fighters" comes from Reagan and the attempt to oust Ortega and the Sandanistas from Nicarague.....I am not sure if you are tryring to invoke that or not. But there are considerable differences between Nicaragua and Libya.

Parent

The term, "lesser of two evils," (5.00 / 2) (#109)
by NYShooter on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:09:41 AM EST

in my lifetime, goes back to the Humphrey/Nixon campaign, although, I`m quite sure, it goes back a lot further. Of course the 1960's Nixon would be a Treasonous, Liberal, Commie, Pinko by today's Republican definition. (I can't bring myself to use the word, "standards," in the same sentence with "Republicans.")

What a macabre position I find myself in, looking back longingly at that choice today.

So, today's wretched choice is not simply, "the lesser of two evils." It's that the Democrats really, really stink. But the Republicans really, really, really stink.

And that, my friends, is the choice Obama has handed us, and a mere one Billion dollars will probably be enough to get that Manchurian Charlatan re-elected.

Looks like Wall Street isn't finished with us yet.

Parent

: lol. the lesser is two reallys. (none / 0) (#112)
by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:32:21 AM EST

Parent

You opined (none / 0) (#48)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:03:27 PM EST

that there would be no Primary challenge to Obama because a pro-Obama hit squad would assissinate any such candidate.

You based this opinion, not on facts, but your feelings and intuitiion.

Parent

You don't (none / 0) (#79)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:50:59 PM EST

know what you're talking about.

I stated that one reason I thought that a progressive challenger to the incumbent might think twice about entering the race is that it might occur to him or her that the last time that happened, the challengers met violent ends.

Nevertheless, your skewed version of what I said, and your curious citation of a "pro-Obama hit squad", has nothing to do with the issue at hand: That Geithner is, to put it charitably, totally incompetent. And that reflects poorly on Obama.

Put uncharitably, there is his malfeasance regarding the mortgage crisis. To print once again what BTD expressed:

Tim Geithner is a disgrace, and a disgrace that reflects on Barack Obama.

He goes on to say that if Obama were to lose in the next election, his loss would be deserved because of it.

For the reason quoted, plus the others I have listed above, I totally agree with that assessment.

Parent

Nope, you said it (none / 0) (#87)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:01:11 PM EST

The debate at the time was whether Obama would be bedhin it personally, and you said, no, it would be his supporters who would whack his Primary challengers.

Parent

: You (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:11:15 PM EST

are not addressing the issue stated by BTD.
I will restate my feeling that anyone entering politics today who intends to assault the status quo or its representatives is risking their lives.
This is also true in other countries.
These are dangerous times.
But, as I said, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand:
That Geithner is a disgrace and reflects poorly upon Obama - and that were Obama to lose his reelection bid, that loss would be well deserved.

Parent

All I can say (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:57:51 PM EST

Is that my vote will prevent the election of a person whose sole goal is reversing every liberal policy.

The fact that I can say that and others can't, yet will cry from the hills about how conservative Obama is and how much he's damaged the country is . . . Interesting.

It's simply impossible to fit the idea of waking up everyday furious with Obama for being a conservative with the idea that a far more conservative in the WH is a better outcome.

it just doesn't make sense however you spin it. I'll keep saying it and it will continue to be true every time I do.

Sure, Gingrich would be horrible (5.00 / 4) (#43)
by observed on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:28:45 PM EST

but that doesn't make Obama one iota better.
The concept is not difficult to grasp.
As a pragmatic person, I suggest that if you cannot even understand such a basic concept, your contributions to the discussion here will be of very limited value.

Parent

Obama is just as bad as Gingrich? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:56:19 PM EST

That is very easy to grasp??

But then again you have equated Obama's civil rights record to the 1970s Soviet Union.

Parent

It's not true that I said (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by observed on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:35:46 PM EST

Obama and Gingrich are the same.
Reading comprehension is not your strong subject.
Based on the evidence, I don't know what is.

On the other topic: Obama, and Bush before him, are asserting tyrannical powers in pursuit of the "War on Terror".
It was a bit of hyperbole to compare Obama with the Soviets, but if one is NOT outraged enough at Obama (and Bush before him) asserting the rights of a tyrant, something is wrong.

Parent

Oberved, I look (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:44:13 PM EST

at it this way. I criticize Obama and Bush even before I criticize other countries' leaders because the leaders of the US are supposed to act better and to know better.

The move toward any-means-necessary security is the coward's move to me. Cowards want to control. They aren't willing to allow others to do things that they themselves don't like.

We have, or had, rights in this country, but the war on terror had eroded them severely. The rules are no longer clear here.

I'm not that bothered by living in an openly authoritarian state Brazil, Argentina, and Panama come to mind as examples of where I DID live.

I am bothered by living in a state that claims freedom, yet keeps chipping away at it

Parent

: I"m more bothered at living in a state (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by observed on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:48:55 PM EST

which does have many freedoms, but at the cost of the lives and well-being of millions of people around the world.
Supposing that the war in Iraq guaranteed our safety (a dubious point), look at the cost/benefit ratio. For example, what is the value of your freedom compared to the births of thousands of deformed babies, caused by our poisons?
To look at rights and freedoms only in the US is a
very colonial viewpoint.
If you don't value how the freedom of ALL citizens of the world is supported or eroded by our government, then freedom becomes a commodity; as such, it is a sham.

Parent

Zorba (none / 0) (#51)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:07:48 PM EST

This ia an absolutely true comment, as you know.

Parent

: True, that the comment was made (none / 0) (#57)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:58:13 PM EST

Parent

Your vote for Obama, rather than (5.00 / 6) (#49)
by Anne on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:04:41 PM EST

preventing the election of a person whose sole goal is reversing every liberal policy, will actually enable someone who is nominally Democratic to continue his rightward movement away from all those liberal policies. I mean, what evidence do you have, how confident are you, that once re-elected, Obama isn't going to continue to cater to, concede to and accommodate the interests and demands of Republicans, in an effort to win the Most Reasonable and Most Mature Person in the Room Award?

Does it never occur to you that one of the reasons he has been able to move to the right, and why he will be able to continue to move in that direction, is that voters like you have already indicated that you're going to vote for him no matter what?

Where is the incentive to change the way he's doing things?

The reality is that you are applying absolutely no pressure on him to do anything differently, because he already has your vote sewn up; I've lost count of the number of people who have stated their anger and disappointment, who conclude with, "but I'll probably vote for him anyway," and every time I read a comment like that, I wonder how that person thinks that attitude is going to change anything.

I know of a lot of people who did as I did in 2008 - voted for all the state and local races, but left the ballot blank for president, or voted third party - and I think you might be surprised how many more people will go that route in 2012.

Parent

At least.... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by robert72 on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:46:58 PM EST

with a Republican president the Democrats in the Senate and House will fight against the right wing policies. Now they are just going along.....

Parent

: I have thought (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:34:58 PM EST

that too.
The only thing that tempers my optimism in that regard is that I no longer feel or think that the Democrats would indeed fight for anything I care about. They, according to all appearances, have been bought and sold by the same people who have bought and sold the elected members of the Republican party.
W. faced a democratic congress in 2006 that had been elected to end the war in Iraq. He got them to support an escalation of the war instead. The Democrats then put up a candidate, Obama, who hailed the success of Bush's escalation of that war and said it had succeeded beyond his "wildest dreams".
Ugh.

Parent

Neither (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:00:46 PM EST

Obama nor his adversaries have liberal interests at heart. That is obvious to all but the professionally partisan.

You like to preach the doctrine of the least worst and claimed that, "Out in the non-TL world what I am saying is common sense to many."

I think you should spend more of your time in that wonderful world where you encounter many people so receptive to your common sense.

Parent

There are millions of them (none / 0) (#89)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:04:25 PM EST

This blog is an anti-Obama echo chamber.

The views here do not go very far outside this blog.

Parent

This blog (5.00 / 4) (#92)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:22:11 PM EST

is called,"TalkLeft".

It presents a forum for people who believe in the rights of defendants, the Constitution, civil liberties, civil rights, democracy and other issues that are dear to progressives.

So, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that when Obama relegates these causes and issues to the back of the bus, he loses support among many for whom TalkLeft is an important forum.

Parent

I have been here since Feb 2008 (2.00 / 1) (#97)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:55:40 PM EST

so I know what the blog is about.

This blog has been anti-Obama since then....because a lot of former Hillary supporters came here. They did not come here because of the issues of crime. In fact, many here are pro-prosecution as shown by their support of the cop over Prof. Gates in the Harvard arrest.

In terms of crime, I am to the Left of almost everyone else here, including you. But I am pratical enough to know that you are going to need to keep the Republicans out of power.....

Parent

But (5.00 / 2) (#99)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:10:25 PM EST

Obama is a Republican.
He appoints them. He praises them. He brings W. out of mothballs and trots him around.

The people who run this blog actually do support Obama. They supported him in 2008 and have already indicated that they will support him again in 2012.

But they are honest enough to report on the un-Democratic and undemocratic policies that are being pursued by Obama and provide a forum for discussion for people who are deeply troubled by these actions.

You know, Obama supported Lieberman against Lamont during the 2006 Democratic primary. He praised the neanderthal Lieberman and said it would make "good sense" to reelect him.
That was 2006. So he was already unmasked.

You are among those who think that Obama should be reelected to "keep the Republicans out of power". But I say that the Republicans will be in power whether or not Obama is reelected.
Because he is a Republican.

As J.C. is reported to have said, "By their actions shall Ye know them."

Parent

Yes, that is the argument (none / 0) (#100)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:20:14 PM EST

But I disagree.

I think the model is the Occupy Movement. They were not anti-Obama, but have done enormous good and changed the terms of the debate, as all acknowledge.

From a liberal perspective, your best bet is to re-elect Obama and pressure him via Occupy Movement type responses. That is not pie in the sky--it has actually worked.

If the Republicans gain power, there is zero change for liberals. What's left of Democrats in the Congress would not save the day--they would most likely bend to the Republicans....That is what happened in 1980.

Parent

I agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by sj on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:39:23 PM EST

I think the model is the Occupy Movement. They were not anti-Obama, but have done enormous good and changed the terms of the debate, as all acknowledge.

But I have not noticed that are pro-Obama either. Pro-democracy - surely, pro-civil rights - absolutely, pro-regulation, ditto. I see them putting pressure on society -- which includes the White House. But I don't see them advocating for Obama.

Nor, I should point out, do I see Obama advocating for them.

Parent

Would that the commentators here (none / 0) (#108)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:06:33 AM EST

follow the approach of the Occupy Movement with respect to their (lack of) antipathy or agnosticism towards Obama.

I think the featured authors on this blog do that.....

Parent

Well, if that's what you're "would"-ing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by sj on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:31:29 AM EST

You are also "would"-ing that there would be no pro-Obama speech here.

The featured authors on this blog do not follow the convention of the Occupiers who neither overtly criticize nor overtly support the Administration. The featured authors on this blog both support and criticize the Administration.

It sounds to me like you want to voice your support while shutting down criticism.

Parent

Hardly (none / 0) (#114)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:39:16 AM EST

It is the overt personal animus towards Obama.

And the snide sarcasm and insults towards anyone who challenges the PC here.

Parent

This is RICH coming from you (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by sj on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:53:37 AM EST

And the snide sarcasm and insults towards anyone who challenges the PC here.

Snide sarcasm and insults are part of your stock in trade. Sprinkled with the occasional cogent comment. More of those, please and less of your tantrums.

Parent

: You guys tend to (none / 0) (#151)
by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:41:35 AM EST

congeal into a mob that heaps scorn on Obama posters.....
Just don't try to run to mama bear and papa bear....stand on you own....

Parent

Insults... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
by shoephone on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:07:21 AM EST

Such as calling someone a drunk?

Parent

I didn't say she was a drunk (2.00 / 1) (#133)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:33:31 PM EST

and I thought it was funny.

Parent

It isn't funny (5.00 / 2) (#141)
by shoephone on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:21:45 PM EST

It's childish. Every time someone says something you disagree with, your stock repsonse is "Must have been the Margaritas."

Grow the phuck up.

Parent

Eff You (1.00 / 2) (#142)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:34:20 PM EST

Just used it yesterday.

Parent

Keep stepping in it (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by shoephone on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 11:43:55 PM EST

Lots of witnesses here.

Parent

: Cool (none / 0) (#152)
by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:42:09 AM EST

Parent

Selective outrage (none / 0) (#143)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:36:22 PM EST

See comment below....

So many whiners.....

Parent

How about this (none / 0) (#135)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:05:22 PM EST

comment? A problem? No outrage there.....

Parent

As I have written (5.00 / 2) (#139)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 06:01:33 PM EST

many times in response to ABG when he used to write that people here "hate" Pres. Obama, that is not the case. Many people here abhor the policies he has promoted. Don't make an ad hominem attack by claiming such attacks have been made against the Prez.

Parent

Nope, many haters here (none / 0) (#144)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:07:57 PM EST

Parent

A few crap artists too. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:44:53 PM EST

Parent

: Why is that there are just some (none / 0) (#147)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:46:37 PM EST

that run onto the court and start throwing elbows....and then whine about what happens after.......

Parent

And (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by lentinel on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:45:45 AM EST

you are one of them.

Parent

: Okay--let's see how respectful you are of those (none / 0) (#156)
by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:34:04 PM EST

who post pro-Obma comments from here on out....
Didn't think so.

Parent

Personally, (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by lentinel on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 06:20:01 AM EST

I have no antipathy towards Obama, although at this point I will admit that he is making my flesh crawl.

I don't have any feeling about him whatsoever. Similarly, I have no feeling about what he might feel about me or my fellow citizens.

To me, since assuming office, he has been a shadowy figure. He emerges from time to time, says what is placed before him, and retires once again.

I do have sincere antipathy towards the policies that he has continued and even amplified from the Bush era. Rendition. Indefinite detention without charge or trial. The calculated murder of an American citizen who will never be brought to trial. The conduct of the war in Afghanistan. The use of drones and the resulting deaths of innocent civilians. The use of drones to spy. The use of drones and the resulting killing of Pakistani troops. The enthusiastic endorsement of the "patriot act" by his attorney general. The non-support for the Union Movement. The non-support for those losing their homes. His appointment and continuing endorsement of Geithner.

In short, most if not all of the things I despised during the reign of Bush 2, I find alive and well in the era of Obama.

But, to reiterate, it is the policies I despise.
To me, Obama is not even worth thinking about.

Parent

Drones and Pakistan (none / 0) (#136)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:22:45 PM EST

Obama has done well here.

He told everyone during the 2008 campaign that he would go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. He said during one debate with McCain that he would "kill Bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda."

He has done well there.

With respect to Afghanistan, he did say during the 2008 campaign that he would add "two brigades," so the policy of increasing troops should not be surprising. What does surprise some is Obama's trending toward a withdrawal.

And, Obama changed the stated U.S. policy on torture and waterboarding...

Obama has been a foreign policy success.

Parent

Great (5.00 / 2) (#153)
by lentinel on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:45:01 AM EST

So you must be a happy person.
You have at least another 4 years of this kind of success to look forward to.

Parent

: True, I forgot (none / 0) (#161)
by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:15:18 PM EST

that Obama would weasle his way out of withdrawing from Iraq and would follow McCain's advice of pressuring the Iraqis into allowing us to keep our troops there. Yes, that happened, right?
And, Libya has turned out just like Vietnam, as all you foretold. Our support of NATO did devolve--just as you all predicted because you know Obama all so well and he is just like a Republican--into a full blown invasion just like Vietnam.
I think that is what your position is, true?

Parent

zero "chance" (none / 0) (#101)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:21:49 PM EST

Zero change is your argument, not mine....

Parent

I recall exactly one commenter (5.00 / 2) (#118)
by shoephone on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:10:45 AM EST

taking the side of the cop in the Henry Gates saga. ONE. But, by all means, feel free to make sh*t up as you go along.

Parent

: One that was most vocal (none / 0) (#132)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:28:21 PM EST

but others who agreed.
Or, you could look at the Casey Anthony or Conrad Murray trials. Looked like a lot pro-prosecution folks here to me.

Parent

That characterization is simply false. (4.67 / 3) (#105)
by observed on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:43:26 PM EST

The fact T, L was not the same as DK, where Obama partisans literally stole the show, by ganging up and expelling anti-Obama voices, makes TL a more reasonable place.
I don't see a dearth of pro-Obama comments here.
I haven't seen Jeralyn or BTD endorse anyone but Obama for 2012.
If you don't like it, you are welcome to leave.
I have to say that unlike ABG and ChristineP, who have yet to write a single cogent comment on anything, I find your comments occasionally interesting, although your attitude bites.

Parent

Not exactly (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:40:08 PM EST

my vote will prevent the election of a person whose sole goal is reversing every liberal policy.

With Obama heading the Democratic ticket, and some cretin heading the Republican ticket, we will wind up with someone who will be continuing to unravel and reverse every liberal policy.

You just would be happier if it were Obama doing the reversing.

Parent

ABG: "Is that my vote will prevent" (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:37:29 AM EST

- textbook delusions of grandeur.

Parent

: Should each person value his or her own vote (none / 0) (#148)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:58:51 PM EST

Deluisons of grandeur....good grief......

Parent

Civil rights? (none / 0) (#66)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:51:55 PM EST

ABG, perhaps you can explain the New Black Panther voter intimidation investigation/results of Obama's DOJ?

Was that "liberal policy?"

Parent

The finacial system is circling the drain right... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by redwolf on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:49:13 AM EST

now. Within 6 months of Europe going down the drain and then we're next. We won't make it past 2013 without a complete melt down.

So you have the following scenarios:

Reelect Obama, he takes the blame for the melt down and watch as the GOP captures a 2/3s majority in the house and senate in 2014. The GOP then passes whatever they want.
Stay home and allow Romney to win, blame the melt down on him, and retake the house and the senate in 2014. Elect an adult in 2016.
Nominate someone in 2012 who can actually fix the f-ing problem because gods know Obama can't/won't and the GOP would never elect anyone who would hurt their friends on wall street feelings.

If you're betting the economy improve enough to get Obama re-elected then you could be right. But it's pretty much guaranteed it's going to get much, much worse after the election. You need an FDR, not a smoke blowing, wall street kissing, flimflam man who's only skill in life making pretty speeches and keeping Turbo Tax Timmy employed.

Oh and if your not sure what the fix is yet: Default on the bad debt and reset the credit system. Screw the creditors while protecting the borrowers. It's the only way out this short of hyper-inflation.

Oh and vote for Ron Paul if for nothing else than the luz factor if you have an open state primary. It's always fun watching conservatives blogs go insane when Ron Paul wins anything.

: Spot on analysis (none / 0) (#123)
by BobTinKY on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 11:00:06 AM EST

option 2 may be the best we can hope for.

Parent

Now this (2.00 / 1) (#35)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:27:47 PM EST

is a comment chain reflecting the diaspora of left opinions on Obama.

There is everything from "kind of hate Obama" to "fully hate Obama".

Good example of the state of things: someone in the chain above said they'd vote for whoever the GOP nominated and as a way of achieving . . . well who knows what objective that could be, and that elicits . . . well no outrage. It's apparently A-OK.

Fox would be proud of this kind of fair and balanced analysis.

Insert my typical "let's be pragmatic about the situation" comments here, and shame on Jim for pretending that voting for Newt, Perry or Mitt isn't terrible. They are way worse than Obama based on almost any metric you could provide.

Oddly, I'll get more flack for advocating vote fo Obama than Jim will for advocating a party dedicated to destroying everything that the left deems important, but that's where we are unfortunately.

It's a ridiculous time in the lefty blogosphere.

"Occupy Talk Left" (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by NYShooter on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:39:23 PM EST

"It's a ridiculous time in the lefty blogosphere."

Are you attached to a telephone pole here?

The door right over there....

The one that says "Exit"

Parent

Well you see (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Edger on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:46:37 PM EST

What you're missing as usual (intentionally?), is that there is everything from "kind of hate the things Obama does" to "fully hate Obama the things Obama does", but that recognition wouldn't help you build strawmen - which are lies, btw.

Yes, it will be horrible if one of those crazy republicans wins next year. You'll have to spend 4 years pretending all over again to be opposed to most of what Obama has been doing the past three years, while you get 4 years of the policies you've been cheering for the past three years, and I'm sure that cognitive dissonance will be unbearably painful for you. But you'll handle it. You've had lots of practice.

Yep. It's a ridiculous time in the lefty blogosphere.

Parent

ABG, do you know (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:01:18 PM EST

that Jim is a right-leaning independent who is sympathetic to the GOP in almost every respect?

someone in the chain above said they'd vote for whoever the GOP nominated

i know you think many here are closet Republicans - be that as it may (i don't think it's true at all), Jim outed himself a long time ago

Parent

All I know (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:04:33 PM EST

Is that Obamas occasional defenders here get more flack for supporting Obama than Jim does for leaning right on policy.

I am not talking about just me. Take me out of the equation because I wade in here with my gloves off and pull no punches.

I am asserting that a random person who came on a chain and argued that Obama has done a decent job would cause more of a stir than Jim would for saying conservative policies are superior.

I'll point it out when it happens again.

Parent

Jim does (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:14:26 PM EST

what everybody expects Jim to do, so that's why his comments elicit little response except from a few who enjoy sparring with him

so in that respect, you're right that

a random person who came on a chain and argued that Obama has done a decent job would cause more of a stir than Jim would for saying conservative policies are superior

that's because there are many here who don't think Obama has done a decent job

I wade in here with my gloves off and pull no punches

also true - not saying i approve or disapprove of that, but it's probably at least part of the reason why people so often tangle with you

you & Jim are both somewhat out of the mainstream here - Jim because he is toward the right end of the spectrum & you because this is a blog where Obama's policies come in for more critical commentary than you seem comfortable with

i don't think that makes Jim or you less welcome - well, actually, in your case, i have sometimes piled on without listening to you, & i do now apologize for that

Parent

Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:09:03 PM EST

Are you really going to downrate very pro-Obama comment on this thread without any explanation.

Parent

You can downrate (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by Zorba on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:54:44 PM EST

And so can I. Have at it.

Parent

: I agree (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by MKS on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:57:21 PM EST

Any thoughts on substance?

Parent
: Doesn't seem to like (none / 0) (#74)
by sj on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:42:05 PM EST

his own medicine. I wonder why that is.

Parent

You must not have been reading ... (none / 0) (#60)
by cymro on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:06:01 PM EST

... this blog carefully if you can make the mistake of drawing any conclusion from the number of responses to Jim's comments other than the observation that those are typical comments from Jim. Most of us don't bother responding to them most of the time because there's no point, unless you want to get into a long drawn-out debate in which you already know what the other party is going to say at least 90% of the time. Using the frequency of responses to Jim as a statistic to support an argument about thge opinions of TalkLeft posters is just silly.

Parent

i think you meant to reply (none / 0) (#61)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:11:36 PM EST

to me (#42), not ABG (#41)

i don't think my comment says what you think it does

Parent

: On the contrary, I am responding to this ... (none / 0) (#76)
by cymro on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:28:11 PM EST

... statement by ABG:

I am asserting that a random person who came on a chain and argued that Obama has done a decent job would cause more of a stir than Jim would for saying conservative policies are superior.
If you had any knowledge of the history of Jim's posts, or of people's typical responses to Jim's posts, then you would never consider that knowledge as relevant to an argument about people's typical reactions to any other post from any other TalkLeft poster. Yes, other posts may indeed cause more of a stir than a post by Jim--but so what? That fact proves absolutely nothing.

Parent

In order to (none / 0) (#73)
by sj on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:41:13 PM EST

know that about Jim, one needs to read what he says, take his meaning and retain that information. In order to know if his comments generate any push back or "outrage" one would need to read the responses, take the meaning and retain that information.

I can see how he missed that, though, because JimakaPPJ comments infrequently. And generates few comments in response.

I'm pretty sure that's it.

Parent

Obama (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:25:55 PM EST

isn't worth hating.

Parent

ABG..... (none / 0) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:40:22 PM EST

First I note for the (probably) elevententh time that I am a Social Liberal who left the Democratic Party because Carter convinced me that they had no workable foreign policy (remember, that was during the Cold War)and a worse economic policy. You probably don't remember stagflation. That was sky high interest rates, sky high inflation and sky high unemployment.

Since then only Clinton tempted me to vote Democratic, but the Little Admiral won my mind if not my heart.

But let's be positive. What did I dislike about the Repubs? Basically, "rights." Their positions on gay, women's, civil just didn't grab me. Unfortunately, the Demos haven't been much better, and in some cases, their "solutions" have been worse. And I didn't like the Repubs' position of drugs. But here again the Demos haven't been better despite their continual "wink wink nod nod" towards reform of our drug laws.

I did find the Repubs defense positions head and shoulders above the Demos. I flat out blame the loss of thousands of American lives and millions of Asians on the Demo Left and the politicians who bowed to them. The War On Terror, to me, is actually WW4 and the Demos are just as bad as they ever were.

The only thing that I thought Obama might do that would be worth while would be to bring a single payer health care system to the country and he has totally failed at that..... along with a failed economic policy....failed energy policy and a failed immigration and related social policies.

Other than that he has been fine. ;-)

Parent

Single payer (none / 0) (#110)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:15:56 AM EST

How can you be both for single payer and vote for Republicans?....

Too far a reach for me.

Parent

For one thing (none / 0) (#121)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:14:25 AM EST

The Repubs didn't pass a bill that creates Death Panels.

Parent

Neither did ... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:30:24 PM EST

... the Democrats.

Not just a lie, but the "2009 Lie of the Year".

Parent

As usual Yman can not refute (none / 0) (#127)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:39:02 PM EST

so he makes snarky vulgar attacks.

He really isn't worth debating.

He doesn't think that removing $500 billion from Medicare will create shortages of Doctors and hospital space available for the elderly using Medicare.

He doesn't think that shortages will lead to rationing of services.

He doesn't think that rationing will require government regulations creating panels to determine who will, and who will not, receive treatment.

He doesn't think that panels empowered to determine who will be allowed to die should be called "Death Panels."

In short, he doesn't think.

Parent

I don't think ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:16:05 PM EST

... I'll believe your death panel lie, whether it's repeated by Palin, Gingrich or you, for the many reasons pointed out by Politifact in the link.

On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin's statement Pants on Fire. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.
"I think it is really unfortunate that this has been raised and received so much attention because there are serious issues to debate in health care reform," she said at a forum on Sept. 3.

IOW - The ridiculous lie doesn't even rise to the level of being taken seriously - at least by anyone with half-a-clue.

But the "doesn't think" comment - from you, of all people - is hilarious.

Parent

I have laid out the facts (none / 0) (#137)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 04:57:27 PM EST

You quote some Demo blogger.

When you can refute the facts, let us know.

In the meantime, time to turn you back of because you don't debate, just insult and repeat.

Have a nice night.

Parent

It's Politifact, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 06:25:54 PM EST

It's a Pulitzer Prize winning project of the St. Petersburg Times - not "some Demo blogger".

Your "death panels" claim isn't a fact - it's nothing more than a lie - a lie of the year, in fact.

Parent

As usual you make claims without thinking. (none / 0) (#146)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:46:34 PM EST

Let us examine what your "expert source" wrote:

On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin's statement Pants on Fire. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.

The stick used to attack Palin, and anyone who dared agree, was the use of the word "euthanasia."

I mean, that couldn't happen, "here." Why she must be a nut. I mean here she is daring to bring up the subject of what could happen if healthcare shortages actually happened.

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care?

Link

But the realty is simply this. The national conversation spread and people started to understand that Obama was destroying Medicare by removing $500 billion dollars, the logic of Palin's claim was proven by Obama himself.

....government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.

We have seen doctors decide to not accept Medicare patients and we understand that hospitals and doctors must expand to accept the ever expanding Medicare aged boomers. But the funds are being lowered. That means that resources will be reduced.

Now, when resources are reduced, the remainder must be rationed.

Now since healthcare will be rationed, who will determine who gets the care?

A panel of people. A government named panel of people.

And what will they do?

It won't be "euthanasia."

It will just be, well, you're 65 and need a kidney transplant. You can have one. BTW - It will be 9 years before your name comes up.

That is a Death Panel.

You know it. I know it and the people know it.

Parent

In other words (none / 0) (#149)
by NYShooter on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 11:19:22 PM EST

what we will have is exactly what we have now.

Parent

The only people who "know it" ... (none / 0) (#155)
by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:22:41 AM EST

... are the delusional wingers who repeat the lie.

But I don't need to tell you that.

Parent

The lie is in the (none / 0) (#157)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:38:13 PM EST

people who use the word euthanasia to try and make her comment appear wild. But you know that because I gave you a link.

Now, I explained, very carefully what many of us see when Obama's $500 billion dollar cut hits Medicare. Note I didn't say that euthanasia would be used. Just that age and disease would be used to schedule treatment due to shortages caused by loss of funds and the rationing that would be would required.

Results, of course, are the same for the person who can't get the treatment when needed.

What I can't understand is why the Left, who is supposedly composed of people who believe that government must do everything possible for the welfare of the people, denies the realty of Death Panels.

The answer, of course, is that the Left will never agree with anything a Repub says that criticizes Obama. (They will criticize him themselves, but that's allowed because it is family.)

And just keep on baiting. Sooner or later you'll go over the line.

Parent

The lie is ... (none / 0) (#158)
by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:57:37 PM EST

... the use of the term "death panels", as Politifact layed out very clearly.

But you know that.

BTW - What is this "line" you speak of?

;-)

Parent

The term is accurate and (none / 0) (#159)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:00:04 PM EST

descriptive.

That it shows the world what Obama is doing to Medicare bothers you a lot.

Parent

: Which term? (none / 0) (#160)
by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:49 PM EST

"Lie", or "Lie of the Year"?
I guess it's moot - either way, I agree.
Accurate and descriptive.

Parent

Have another drink (none / 0) (#128)
by Edger on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58:48 PM EST

you'll be fine. The hallucinations will pass....

Parent

heh, I thought this kind of comment (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by MKS on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:11:31 PM EST

was beyond the pale.

Parent

Not at all (none / 0) (#134)
by Edger on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:49:37 PM EST

Jim's just upset because Obama went all bipartisany on him and collaborated with republican crazies to give the right wing gouging "health" insurance companies the power to possibly deny him coverage while forcing him to pay through the nose with outrageous premiums for the privilege of possibly being denied.

He'll be ok when he stops taking it personally and realizes that his "death panels" are just hallucinations, finally understands what happened, and will be better able to direct his anger at the two party scam instead of at just one of the actors in the "reality"(sic) show.

He'll be fine. A drink will probably relax him.

You I'm a little concerned about though. Jim will probably figure it out long before you do.

Parent

: Edger, will you please try and remember (none / 0) (#138)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 05:00:51 PM EST

I'm on Medicare.
But I do remind you that I asked you to select a problem and provide a workable solution.
You haven't responded.
Incapable?????

Parent

you (none / 0) (#125)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:25:26 PM EST

are pretty much out of the mainstream on foreign policy. The nation ahbors the foreign policy advocated by the GOP now because they fail to realize what the problem is and think that some idiotic neocon policy is going to change terrorism. They simply haven't a clue as it was shown with Iraq. I mean these people can't even read intelligence reports and discern the information on them as to being accurate or inaccurate. I have no doubt that the GOP will have us bogged down in another quagmire in the middle east sometime soon and will try to finance an adventure with tax cuts for the wealthy.

Parent

All (none / 0) (#88)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:03:16 PM EST

you turkeys associated with Obama like to bash progressives.

Parent

Double post with diff. titles. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:57:08 AM EST

Unforgivable- (none / 0) (#2)
by ek hornbeck on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:17:55 AM EST

Of or relating to an act or situation that one cannot or will not forgive: unforgivable behavior.

so bad as to be unable to be excused or pardoned

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unforgivable

Geithner @ NY Fed: (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:27:15 AM EST

bloomberg

Interesting that Issa obtained the e-mails.

& yet we forgive (none / 0) (#44)
by BobTinKY on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:41:29 PM EST

and dutifully vote Obama in 2012.

I wish Huntsman would be nominated just to pressure Obama on the too big to fail banks.

Treasury's "Battle With The Banks?" What "Battle?" | 161 comments (161 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment