everybody needs to check this straight up pwnge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTE4e4sSXU ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowned! also, i'm confused. how can reagan be such a great guy if he was a republican? conservative philosophy is not evidence based and is the opposite of the way the world actually works. shouldn't we be happy he died?....ok, that's not fair...i should've said: "wouldn't we all be better off if he never existed?"

Is Pinkerton a global warming denialist? I can't remember.

The "stimulus" bill will live in history as a monument to political hypocrisy. As many members of Congress surely know, unemployment--properly measured--is headed well above 15%. As they also surely know, the prospect of sustained deficits above 1 or 2 trillion dollars is rattling the bond market, juicing the price of gold, and will eventually crash the dollar against whatever currencies emerge from the credit crunch first. Knowing these two things, producing a bill which spends/wastes so much money on anything other than jobs and foreclosure mitigation is a deep moral failure. The most effective way to address employment given the structural problems in our economy is through some combination of WPA-type programs and making job creation/retention less expensive through a progressive payroll tax. Unfortunately, we seem to be squandering our outstanding credit line pretending we have a few shots at figuring this out.

Quoting claymisher: Is Pinkerton a global warming denialist? I can't remember.

I'll make you a deal. I'll investigate and report back, on the condition that you tell me specifically what you--presumably a non-denialist (affirmist?)--believe about global warming.

Quoting claymisher: Is Pinkerton a global warming denialist? I can't remember.

Not a denier. He doesn't claim to be an expert on the science, but he does emphasize the near futility of trying to stop climate change (without the help of China, Russia and India), and he is rightly concerned about the potential damage to the US economy. See http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/387?in=23:11&out=26:28

Enforcement of compensation limitations will not be necessary if the new administration elects to let existing banking regulations be enforced. Banks which are insolvent would be closed, cleaned and then re-opened. Current managements would be removed immediately and the separation indemnity clauses in their contracts would almost certainly be near the end of the list of liabilities to be honored. Solvent banks could continue to compensate their employees in any legal manner the directors see fit. Insolvency is conceptually much easier than TARP I or this new public/private asset fund. A principle benefit is that it completely erases doubt on asset values...whatever people pay for them is exactly what they would be worth. If values of certain asset classes slumped to 15% of book value, it wouldn't matter as the asset owner would already be insolvent. What is the purpose of the private/public partnership? TARP I and this new program seem to have identical goals of avoiding insolvencies of our financial institutions. On the surface this sounds good, but the only mechanisms that has been identified to do this is to use coerced funds to make either pretty

Blogginghead Yves Smith (of the indispensable blog Naked Capitalism) calls it like it is: we need to nationalize some of our largest banks. So say George Soros, Nouriel Roubini, Barry Ritholtz, Josh Rosner, Chris Whalen, Nassim Taleb, and basically all the smartest people on the topic who don't have a vested interest to defend. http://money.cnn.com/video/#/video/n...ilout.cnnmoney

Quoting Namazu: Blogginghead Yves Smith (of the indispensable blog Naked Capitalism) calls it like it is: we need to nationalize some of our largest banks. So say George Soros, Nouriel Roubini, Barry Ritholtz, Josh Rosner, Chris Whalen, Nassim Taleb, and basically all the smartest people on the topic who don't have a vested interest to defend.

http://money.cnn.com/video/#/video/n...ilout.cnnmoney

Even The Economist is basically calling for bank nationalization. Yikes. I was a little annoyed with Corn's attitude towards public servants who go into the private sector. It's making the perfect the enemy of the good to demand that anyone who gives any years to public service needs to give all their years to it. Coming from a journalist, a job people are willing to pay money to try to get into, it rings especially hallow

What's the big deal about Geithner's bank bailout plan? If it's so difficult to sell politically, send Maxine Waters out to flog it.

Which sea do you have to cross to get to Canada?

Nationalization is a funny world. It's not like we're going to turn Wall St into the Postal Service. Most of the big banks are just insolvent. If they weren't at the nexus of our economy we'd let bankruptcy court settle it. I guess receivership is the word.

Quoting Nate: Which sea do you have to cross to get to Canada?

The Gulf of Xenophobia.

... does no one have respect for tradition anymore??? Where's my classic Pinkercorn intro??!!!1!?? ========== [Added] Original version of this post was in all caps. Hilariously, vBulletin appears to Change Such Posts Into Title Case. Shoutout to the developers -- that's one small step to improving online discourse, even if it did mess up my joke.

All right, a second question: When did David Corn turn into Andy Card?

Quoting Titstorm: everybody needs to check this straight up pwnge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTE4e4sSXU

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowned!

A momentary cheap thrill. K-Mart kabuki, at best. I align myself with Jim Newell's concluding thoughts on the same clip:

These public theater hearings with the various failed assholes of the Financial Sector get more grating as they go along. Congressmen will deliver their best outraged, populist rants — usually glazed with this sort of “HOW DID BAD STUFF HAPPEN?” bewilderment — but several days later will almost certainly vote to give these people hundreds of billions in loans under the “preconditions” that they must use it wisely! and not be greedy! because there will be an oversight panel!, all of which is useless grandstanding because they will never include actual legal, binding tools in the terms of the loans with which to punish these people for reckless usage of taxpayer funds. This is a crucial point! A five-minute lecture on Morality & Greed will not stop Wall Street from taking the most vulgar, possibly nation-destroying risks to inflate their bonuses by a few million dollars, as long as those risks are in any way legally justifiable!

Which leads us back to Michael Capuano’s rant today, about how he “thinks” credit default

Quoting Simon Willard: The Gulf of Xenophobia.

Simon wins the thread.

Did David Corn, right around the 10:30 mark, really describe the tax-rebate giveaway checks as a "spending cut"??? I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke there, as opposed to being badly confused. Spending cuts are what this government desperately needs, and has needed for a generation. There are none I'm aware of anywhere in the spendulus bill. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quoting Tara Davis: Did David Corn, right around the 10:30 mark, really describe the tax-rebate giveaway checks as a "spending cut"???

Might want to double-check your time reference. I just listened again to 10:00-11:30, and didn't hear anything of the sort.

Quoting bjkeefe: Might want to double-check your time reference. I just listened again to 10:00-11:30, and didn't hear anything of the sort.

Vocal hesitations & cheap shots at Pinkerton omitted... 10:34: "To be fair to the House Democrats [...] if they had their druthers [...] there would be very little in the way of spending cuts here. But yet you know Obama came in and said a 40 percent - 60 percent split, and it ends up being 32 percent [..] and Obama did that hoping he could buy or draw Republican support..." There are not 40 percent or even 32 percent spending cuts in the bill. The whole bill is a massive spending hike, coupled to per-household tax rebates. The US is carrying too much debt, devaluing our currency and threatening the entire world economy. Under normal circumstances, I'd be okay with taking on a little debt (via temporary tax cuts and/or temporary spending) to ease the slump of a major recession, but under current circumstances, we simply can't afford it. The only sane way to claw out of this mess is by making the government a SMALLER load on the GDP via cuts. Even the most liberal among us, if motivated to do so, could

Quoting Tara Davis: Vocal hesitations & cheap shots at Pinkerton omitted...

10:34: "To be fair to the House Democrats [...] if they had their druthers [...] there would be very little in the way of spending cuts here. But yet you know Obama came in and said a 40 percent - 60 percent split, and it ends up being 32 percent [..] and Obama did that hoping he could buy or draw Republican support..."

There are not 40 percent or even 32 percent spending cuts in the bill. The whole bill is a massive spending hike, coupled to per-household tax rebates.

I'm virtually certain the two categories under discussion in the stimulus bill are spending programs and tax cuts, not spending cuts. Agree with the effectiveness of either spending or tax cuts as stimulative or not, I don't think anybody believes spending cuts are stimulative. They would not have been part of the discussion for this bill. So, yeah, David misspoke. Sorry I made you listen to it twice and didn't hear it myself. While I agree with your general views about debt and excessive spending, I don't agree with this:

Even the most liberal among us, if motivated to do so, could easily go through the US budget

Yay, David Corn actually used the word "inflation." Maybe it's starting to just barely sink in for liberals how pre-Weimar-y we look. To all the liberals, I know you like Opapa and all and you love voting to have people with guns take my money for your failed pet projects, but I want you to promise that you'll go to Ron Paul's site and pledge your loyalty if: Opapa declares an FDR-style bank holiday.
The price of your favorite bag of groceries doubles in price over six months.
All of your family's credit lines are closed against your collected wills. (Disregard this if your family all watched daytime TV prior to '08.)

Quoting Titstorm: everybody needs to check this straight up pwnge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTE4e4sSXU

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowned!

also, i'm confused. how can reagan be such a great guy if he was a republican? conservative philosophy is not evidence based and is the opposite of the way the world actually works. shouldn't we be happy he died?....ok, that's not fair...i should've said: "wouldn't we all be better off if he never existed?"

Great link T-storm. And Capuano voted FOR the TARP.

Quoting breadcrust: ... I want you to promise that you'll go to Ron Paul's site and pledge your loyalty ...

Irony meter pinned.

Don't spend your tax cut in one place: they amount to a whopping $13 a week. Perhaps, it will offset the upcoming California tax hikes. It's a draw. John

Quoting bjkeefe: Irony meter pinned.

Well, I know you view Opapa (Gack II and I couldn't even get through the whole new thing) as supranormal, so I'm just trying to help you with something doable. Liberal to libertarian in three easy steps: Adulate Dear Leader
1)Pledge Loyalty To Politician
2)Treat Politicians With Skepticism
3)Become An Adult

Quoting breadcrust: Well, I know you view Opapa (Gack II and I couldn't even get through the whole new thing) as supranormal, so I'm just trying to help you with something doable.

Liberal to libertarian in three easy steps:

Adulate Dear Leader
1)Pledge Loyalty To Politician
2)Treat Politicians With Skepticism
3)Become An Adult

If I had ever met a libertarian over the age of 21 I'd feel bad for them. At some point in life you learn about your own fallibility, too.

Quoting pampl: If I had ever met a libertarian over the age of 21 I'd feel bad for them. At some point in life you learn about your own fallibility, too.

We libertarians are legion (say 10-15% of Americans). Just not as legion as the liberals who love to threaten us. And just because not many people say libertarian things to you means they're not. You see, liberals love to marginalize anyone with different views than them, love to shout people down. Unlike me, most libertarians avoid confrontations with evil people. Realizing you're fallible shouldn't lead to you thinking that pointing guns at people to finance the drug war, stop them from driving without seat belts, fund the war in Afghanistan, bail out the rich, and give gobs of free money to Henrietta is a good idea.

Quoting Nate: Which sea do you have to cross to get to Canada?

Not sure, but I think you need aboot to get there.

Do I want to cut federal spending on roads and education? YES! HELL YES! A MILLION TIMES YES! It's not the proper constitutional role of the federal government to spend one thin dime on either endeavor. Furthermore, cut the military in half? AT LEAST. You can't convince me that we need to maintain bases all over the world for the sake of our security. They are out there to protect "national interests", a deliciously vague concept which permits us to keep a massive military footprint in places like Berlin.

Quoting breadcrust: We libertarians are legion (say 10-15% of Americans). Just not as legion as the liberals who love to threaten us. And just because not many people say libertarian things to you means they're not. You see, liberals love to marginalize anyone with different views than them, love to shout people down. Unlike me, most libertarians avoid confrontations with evil people.

Realizing you're fallible shouldn't lead to you thinking that pointing guns at people to finance the drug war, stop them from driving without seat belts, fund the war in Afghanistan, bail out the rich, and give gobs of free money to Henrietta is a good idea.

Nothing in your first paragraph is true. Especially not where you confuse 10-15% of the population with 0.07% of the population. Libertarians are too few to even influence New Hampshire politics. Realizing you're fallible leads you to not telling people what they should and shouldn't be realizing. There are lots of good reasons to support or oppose the things you listed, and only someone as sophomoric as a libertarian could think otherwise.

Quoting pampl: Nothing in your first paragraph is true. Especially not where you confuse 10-15% of the population with 0.07% of the population. Libertarians are too few to even influence New Hampshire politics.

Realizing you're fallible leads you to not telling people what they should and shouldn't be realizing. There are lots of good reasons to support or oppose the things you listed, and only someone as sophomoric as a libertarian could think otherwise.

This poll claims only 4% of likely voters are libertarian. Looks like egg on my face. And try saying you're a Republican in Seattle. The (R)s I know keep their mouths shut after years of ostracizing and bullying by liberals. "Realizing you're fallible leads you to not telling people what they should and shouldn't be realizing."
Waah. I tell people what they should realize. You advocate the violent taking of money from people who don't want to fund your opinions. And you probably have a lot of expensive opinions. The only place for people like me to act is in the sphere of ideas because you guys have all the guns and love to use them.

Quoting Tara Davis: Do I want to cut federal spending on roads and education?

YES! HELL YES! A MILLION TIMES YES!

It's not the proper constitutional role of the federal government to spend one thin dime on either endeavor.

Furthermore, cut the military in half? AT LEAST. You can't convince me that we need to maintain bases all over the world for the sake of our security. They are out there to protect "national interests", a deliciously vague concept which permits us to keep a massive military footprint in places like Berlin.

Well, good. We have some common ground. Let's focus on the bloated military budget together.

Quoting breadcrust: You see, liberals love to marginalize anyone with different views than them

Quoting breadcrust: Unlike me, most libertarians avoid confrontations with evil people.

you claim liberals are big meanies that marginalize you, and then claim that they are all "evil people". I won't even try to explain to you how twisted your perceptions of reality are, see if you can figure out why what you wrote is absurd and contradicts itself. good luck.

Quoting breadcrust: This poll claims only 4% of likely voters are libertarian. Looks like egg on my face. And try saying you're a Republican in Seattle. The (R)s I know keep their mouths shut after years of ostracizing and bullying by liberals.

"Realizing you're fallible leads you to not telling people what they should and shouldn't be realizing."
Waah. I tell people what they should realize. You advocate the violent taking of money from people who don't want to fund your opinions. And you probably have a lot of expensive opinions. The only place for people like me to act is in the sphere of ideas because you guys have all the guns and love to use them.

Either I'm missing something important here, or this is just incoherent. Are you really telling us that your Republican friends are afraid to express themselves in public? Because... someone might disagree with them? I'd like to know how you envision a modern society, with all of its concomitant infrastructure without "the violent taking of money from people who don't want to fund your opinions." (Can I opt out of supporting all the projects I don't like

Quoting radmul: I enjoy these diavlogs but Jim all too often falls into the trap of the right, just making up facts. There is no Earmark for Mice.

Hi, radmul. I appreciate your comment, but what in the article you link debunks Pinkerton's assertion? Is it that the program is not an "earmark"? Did Pinkerton use the word "earmark"? Not to my recollection. In any event, it seems to me that accusing Pinkerton of "just making up facts" on the basis of the article to which you linked -- unless I overlooked something in it -- seems a bit extreme. In any event, best regards. CThomas

Quoting AemJeff: Either I'm missing something important here, or this is just incoherent. Are you really telling us that your Republican friends are afraid to express themselves in public? Because... someone might disagree with them? I'd like to know how you envision a modern society, with all of its concomitant infrastructure without "the violent taking of money from people who don't want to fund your opinions." (Can I opt out of supporting all the projects I don't like too?) That last sentence bears repeating:

Heh? You live in a strange world.

I only know one Republican who was punched in the mouth by the democratic co-worker who found out his leanings. Oddly, the puncher was not fired.
As far as fear of the non-violent liberals, it's like high school, AemJeff. When an (R) says something like "capitalism is good," or "I think we should use a voucher system for schools so that lots of different teachers and principals will try lots of different methods to teach children," liberals will roll their eyes in tandem, say the (R) is stupid, etc. Outing as a Republican quickly leads to being ostracized. Not that I think liberals should be forced to be decent, just that it's

Quoting breadcrust: I only know one Republican who was punched in the mouth by the democratic co-worker who found out his leanings.

Not the mouth. It was the eye. (pic. source)

David is gonna wish he didn't say this

Quoting bjkeefe: Not the mouth. It was the eye.

Related. In more ways than one.

"Not the mouth. It was the eye." Well, at least he did the violence himself, instead of doing it the way you guys usually do.

Quoting bjkeefe: Related. In more ways than one.

Also.

Quoting bjkeefe: Related. In more ways than one.

Related, can anyone tell me why Obama insists on associating himself so much with A. Lincoln? It's almost as if he is 100% image. Lincoln quotes: "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." — Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273
"See our present condition---the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another's throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. "Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on

Quoting breadcrust: Well, at least he did the violence himself, instead of doing it the way you guys usually do.

No one could have imagined you'd come back with that. So, besides Ron Paul and David Koresh, do you have any other heroes?

Instead of "Father Knows Best" it's "Government Knows Best." I don't care for either of those programs. John

Quoting breadcrust: Related, can anyone tell me why Obama insists on associating himself so much with A. Lincoln?

Why not read up on it in your favorite newsletter?

Quoting breadcrust: And unless you want to get shot by some government worker, then no, you can't opt out of supporting all the projects you don't like. Because here in America you guys have all decided that government has to be bigger and more threatening every year, crowding out individual choice. But be happy, because even if you don't like some restriction or program, you know I hate it and all the other ones you force on non-violent, non-coercive, peace-loving people like me, so at least you get the pleasure of liberal sadism.

Opt out of America, then. You don't get to overrule democracy by being a big crybaby. By the way, as someone who lives in Seattle, I'm not impressed by your paranoid ravings about liberals. Even on the UW campus no one (sane) was afraid of calling themselves conservative or saying conservative things. There were even affirmative-action style spots reserved for them in the school paper and class discussions

In the style of BJK: I hear Opapa sat on some boards with some domestic terrorist and then wrote a short but glowing review about said terrorist's book. A very hopeful review... A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court is a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair. B.H. Opapa

Quoting breadcrust: I hear Opapa sat on some boards with some domestic terrorist and then wrote a short but glowing review about said terrorist's book. A very hopeful review...

A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court is a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair. B.H. Opapa

Gasp! How did that information get out when it's clear that the media are under total control of the NWO's hand-picked candidate??? Heads will roll!!1!1!

true i guess but, really, how much courage does it take to "blog" about it? none! regardless of how the congressmen vote or what they voted for the CEOs still need to die.

thanks, buddy

Quoting pampl: Opt out of America, then. You don't get to overrule democracy by being a big crybaby. By the way, as someone who lives in Seattle, I'm not impressed by your paranoid ravings about liberals. Even on the UW campus no one (sane) was afraid of calling themselves conservative or saying conservative things. There were even affirmative-action style spots reserved for them in the school paper and class discussions

Oddly, the U.S. sometimes refuses renunciation of citizenship for tax purposes for as long as ten years. Pretty amazing: decide you don't accept the confiscatory taxes, etc any longer so you're going to move to Singapore and then they still might tax you!! For ten years! Of course, pampl will be right there saying "America, love it or leave it, Crybaby! And we're keeping you're money, too!" Man, I thought I sensed the Seattle in your posts. And to think that most people here are sympatico with you... It's no wonder we're going to get the sack tax. Best part of your post (besides almost calling me an outside agitator): you sound like the Bush administration describing free-speech zones.

Quoting breadcrust: Man, I thought I sensed the Seattle in your posts. And to think that most people here are sympatico with you... It's no wonder we're going to get the sack tax. Best part of your post (besides almost calling me an outside agitator): you sound like the Bush administration describing free-speech zones.

I knew it! Just a little prodding, and we could turn you into This Week's Crazy. Thanks for bringing the lulz.

Quoting Titstorm: true i guess but, really, how much courage does it take to "blog" about it? none!

I wasn't aware courage was at issue here. I thought honesty was. And on that score, Newell wins, hands down.

regardless of how the congressmen vote or what they voted for the CEOs still need to die.

(*rolls eyes*)

Quoting bjkeefe: No one could have imagined you'd come back with that.

So, besides Ron Paul and David Koresh, do you have any other heroes?

Randy Weaver, of course!

Quoting claymisher: Randy Weaver, of course!

And Jim Adkisson, no doubt.

Quoting bjkeefe: Why not read up on it in your favorite newsletter?

When I decided to vote for Opapa, I avoided all the stories about his long-time friends, but this 41 second clip ends so well. It may not have the open anti-white rage that this one does, but it is gooood. Do you think Opapa doesn't know that Lincoln was a white supremacist? Opapa is smart and educated so it seems kind of unlikely.

Quoting breadcrust: Do you think Opapa doesn't know that Lincoln was a white supremacist? Opapa is smart and educated so it seems kind of unlikely.

I'm sure he's way smarter and more educated than you, but it wouldn't take anywhere near that much to know how ludicrous your attempts to smear Lincoln are.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm sure he's way smarter and more educated than you, but it wouldn't take anywhere near that much to know how ludicrous your attempts to smear Lincoln are.

Which I'm starting to think even you are realizing. But really, Jeremiah Wright videos? Have you been in a coma for the last six months? Get with the program. It's back to Soros!

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm sure he's way smarter and more educated than you, but it wouldn't take anywhere near that much to know how ludicrous your attempts to smear Lincoln are.

I didn't make those quotes up. Maybe you think Columbus was a great guy too.

Quoting breadcrust: I didn't make those quotes up.

Didn't say you did. I say you're clueless (or being obtuse) because you're failing to account for the different times and the context of the political situation in which they were uttered. Maybe you should read a little history, to understand that Lincoln's primary concern when he was campaigning in the 1850s was to hold the nation together. Your claim that someone from the middle of the 19th century should be judged by the attitudes of the 21st century has to be one of the most boneheaded things I've ever heard.

an eye rolling? ooooh, i've been "judged."
why would honesty be the issue when, clearly, it's a video about someone having the courage to say something to their face? he's not being dishonest anyway....he never told ceos to behave the way they did.

Quoting Titstorm: an eye rolling? ooooh, i've been "judged."

Indeed. Calling for the death of CEOs is, in my judgment, worthy only of a non-verbal response.

why would honesty be the issue when, clearly, it's a video about someone having the courage to say something to their face? he's not being dishonest anyway....he never told ceos to behave the way they did.

Read Newell's post again. It's all about honesty, which is the point I wanted to get across when I first quoted it. It is not at all impressive to me when a member of Congress plays to the cameras for a few minutes, especially when he has a history of voting for the very things he's criticizing and/or pretending not to understand. And though I don't think courage is at issue here, no matter how much you're trying to change the subject to that, I'll just say that it takes no courage whatsoever for a politician to stage a populist tirade against whoever has been identified as the moment's Worst Person EVAR. This sort of thing is about as ballsy as a loudmouthed fan at a ballpark cursing out an ump who

Why Wall Street bankers are not like pirates.

Eh....I like the vid better cuz we all found out what newell talks about from the nyt last october....

Quoting Titstorm: Eh....I like the vid better cuz we all found out what newell talks about from the nyt last october....

I'll admit it was entertaining. A well-delivered rant.

Alright, well leave it at that then

Quoting Tara Davis: It's not the proper constitutional role of the federal government to spend one thin dime on either endeavor.

This statement just flabbergasts me. So theoretically, our education system could go down the toilet to be the last place in the world, making impossible ever again American innovation or robust economy, but the federal government should still refrain from taking control of the helm even at that point. Rather, they should just encourage states to do better and give moral support because to do anymore more or substantial is "not their constitutional role". That is just pathetic.

Quoting breadcrust: I only know one Republican who was punched in the mouth by the democratic co-worker who found out his leanings. Oddly, the puncher was not fired.
As far as fear of the non-violent liberals, it's like high school, AemJeff. When an (R) says something like "capitalism is good," or "I think we should use a voucher system for schools so that lots of different teachers and principals will try lots of different methods to teach children," liberals will roll their eyes in tandem, say the (R) is stupid, etc. Outing as a Republican quickly leads to being ostracized. Not that I think liberals should be forced to be decent, just that it's interesting they're not satisfied with a constantly metastasizing liberal state, but want libertarians and (R)s to shut up about it, too.

"I'd like to know how you envision a modern society, with all of its concomitant infrastructure without "the violent taking of money from people who don't want to fund your opinions." (Can I opt out of supporting all the projects I don't like too?"

Easy, start taking infrastructure out of the public sphere. Then, people who want something to do with it can opt to use

Corn says Reagan did nothing to counter apartheid in South Africa. Wrong. Reagan in 1985 banned the importation of kruggerands In 1985, President Reagan signed an executive order banning the import of krugerands as a protest against south Africa’s racially separate policy of apartheid. The Canadian gold bullion maple leaf coin quickly moved in to fill the void. The Krugerrand never made a comeback, even after the sanctions were lifted in 19and92. Ronald Reagan, friend of the black man, striking a blow for world justice. -Bob Dylan

Dingalink of the week, vidal!

I must take exception to the idea of Obama *doing* multi cultural Canada in 5 hours, even while benefiting from top shelf travel perquisites. It’s gonna’ take more than an hour to hear O Canada sung in Algonkin, Arapaho, Assiniboin, Atsina, Bellabella, Bellacoola, Beothuk Family,
Chilliwack, Chippewa, Cowichan, Cree, Crow, Dakota, Eskimo, Etchaottine, Etchareottine, Etheneldeli, Haida, Hidatsa, Huron, Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, Iroquois Kawchodinne Kitksan Kutchin Kutenai Kwakiutl Lillooet, Malecite, Micmac, Montagnais, Moravians, Munsee, Nahane, Nakotchokutchin, Nanaimo, Neutral Nooksak, Nootka, Ntlakyapamuk, Okanagon, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Puntlatsh, Seechelt, Sekani Senijextee Shuswap Siksika Songish Squawmish Tahltan Tatlitkutchin, Tatsanottine, Thlingchadinne, Tionontati, Tsattine, Tschantoga, Tsilkotin, Tsimshian, Tukkuthkutchin, Tutchonekutchin, French, and English, amongst others. And we have not even begun to discuss the folk dancing. Itzik Basman

Thanks for the comic relief Basman. There are so many political nutcases on Bloggingheads that a catalogue of obscure languages actually seems like a dose of reality... Is there really a language called micmac? (=fr. funny business)

Franco, there's definitely a tribe called Micmac, now, politically correctly, called Mi'kmaq. There's been tons of litigation about their fishing, hunting and other aboriginal rights. I think there's such a language, but I'm not sure., truth to tell. After all, I'm, like Obama, much more interested in the folk dancing. Itzik Basman

Franco, I just had thought raised by your interesting, however thrown away, question. Was Micmac a colonial derivative from French occupation? I, plain to say, do not know. Itzik Basman

Quoting kidneystones: See?

Initially, this comment had a completely different title and content. Just like the website of Dear Leader, I can simply insert anything I like here and disappear my early argument down the memory hole. Neat, huh?

Looking to erase your tracks again, eh? Well, we wouldn't want everything to disappear, now would we? Some things never lose their comedy gold luster, after all. Case in point:

Sunday, September 14, 2008
Dems Sharpen Knives for Obama

Sarah Palin makes bacon from Barack Obama and his phony message of change. Jim Pinkerton claims conservative feminism is sweeping the land. Elitism pours forth from the Obama campaign and from his water carriers in the press. The Weekly Standard has the details.

What are Dems going to do with Barack Obama? Clarence Page claims Obama needs a game-changer, and help from the Clintons, btw, right frigging now. At the NYT, Tommy Friedman argues that Republicans are actually trying to make America stupider, Bob Herbert warns dimwittedness may prevail, and Maureen Dowd sneers that Governor Palin is an idiot.

As fascinating as the current panic is, the fight I'm really looking forward will come after the election, when Dem dreams collapse into dust and the media dogs turn circle for

Quoting bjkeefe: Looking to erase your tracks again, eh? Well, we wouldn't want everything to disappear, now would we? Some things never lose their comedy gold luster, after all. Case in point:

And how about these fap-fap excerpts?

Saturday, September 13, 2008
Charlie Gibson's Boner

Gibson Aims At Palin: Shoots Himself In Face. Shoot-out at the ABC corral and another media big-wig bites the dust. How did the Alaska hockey-mom manage to turn the tables on yet another so much smarter east-coast big-shot? Easy: by asking sensible questions, followed with succinct measures of straight-talk.

[...]

Sarah heard Gibson out, focused on the target, squeezed the trigger, and delivered the only fact that matters to 99% of Americans:"if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend." Next question.

[...]

... Palin's message: defend America and demand exacting analysis from subordinates and area experts hits the mark, where Dems miss. Gibson and the rest of McCain's critics can't seem to look past Gov. Palin's chest. If these smug pricks could they'd see what many average Americans already see so clearly: a strong passionate heart that sings

Quoting bjkeefe: Looking to erase your tracks again, eh? Well, we wouldn't want everything to disappear, now would we? Some things never lose their comedy gold luster, after all. Case in point:

And the expertise in forecasting is not just limited to domestic politics, is it?

Monday, September 15, 2008
Bombs Away!

[...]

A nuclear Iran is unacceptable to nearly every right-thinking individual and government on the planet. Israel certainly isn't about to stand still while Iran pursues a bomb and there's little chance the bunker-busters are intended for some dry-run show of force. Barring a complete end to all Iran's nuclear preparations, Israel is going to attack.

Right before or right after the US election.

--rattlesnakepoint.com

Quoting bjkeefe: Looking to erase your tracks again, eh? Well, we wouldn't want everything to disappear, now would we? Some things never lose their comedy gold luster, after all. Case in point:

And from another site, where scrubbing is a little harder:

Obama could win South Carolina; he's still in the race. His campaign, however, is effectively over.

--the kidneystones diary, on dailykos.com, Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:09:53 PM PST

As we move towards the next primaries comes news that Obama's vaunted Republican fans may not deliver. Trying to be all things to all people may cost Obama the nomination. Let's hope so.
--the kidneystones diary, on dailykos.com, Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:39:50 PM PST

And from the same post, proving that kidneystones couldn't even predict his own future behavior:

Why do I care? Because if, by some catastrophe, Obama gets the nomination, God knows, I want him to win.

Quoting bjkeefe: Looking to erase your tracks again, eh? Well, we wouldn't want everything to disappear, now would we? Some things never lose their comedy gold luster, after all. Case in point:

And in closing, let's have a little kidneystones-brand philosophy:

So, I'll stand by the accuracy of my original observation that knowing where you stand squarely is far, far more important than displaying a knowledge of anything, especially nuance.

--from the kidneystones diary on docudharma.com, Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:12:33 AM CDT

I'd say this pretty much explains everything kidneystones has written in the past year.

Brendan: I have just glanced at the last few posts on this thread--my eyes started going buggy. Tell us when you find your mind. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Brendan: I have just glanced at the last few posts on this thread--my eyes started going buggy.

Tell us when you find your mind.

Itzik Basman

Yeah, your eyes must have been buggy, all right. This would explain why you missed the fact that the words in the last few posts in this thread were all from kidneystones. As to how that search will go, I am definitely not holding my breath.

Wikipedia:

The Míkmaq (pronounced [miːɡmax]), traditionally spelled Micmac in English, but Mi’kmaq (singular Mi’kmaw) by the Míkmaq of Nova Scotia, Miigmaq (Miigmao) by the Míkmaq of New Brunswick, Mi’gmaq by the Listuguj Council in Quebec, or Mìgmaq (Mìgmaw) in some native literature, are a First Nations (Native American) people, indigenous to northeastern New England, Canada's Atlantic Provinces, and the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec.

"Micmac" until the 1980s was the most common spelling in English, and is still used for example in Ethnologue, but has fallen out of favor in recent years, and been replaced by the native spelling Mi'kmaq in nearly all scholarly publications. The Míkmaq themselves prefer to use one of the three current Míkmaq orthographies when writing in English or French, and say that the English spelling is "perceived as being colonially tainted."

The nation has a population of about 15,000 (in 1998), of whom half speak the Algonquian language Lnuísimk, more commonly known as "Micmac".[4] Lnuísimk was once written in Míkmaq hieroglyphic writing and is now written using most letters of the standard Latin alphabet......

Quoting basman: Franco, I just had thought raised by your interesting, however thrown away, question. Was Micmac a colonial derivative from French occupation? I, plain to say, do not know.

Itzik Basman

Apparently not. I just looked it up in Le Robert, an etymological dictionary. It dates back to the Middle Ages in French, ultimately to a Dutch word. And the dictionary explicitly denies any link with the Canadian Indian tribe. So just an amusing coincidence. Doubly amusing if, as you say, the tribe has been involved in a lot of legal disputes because that is often the meaning of the word in contemporary French.

Franco, not admittedly from Le Robert, but following your clever lead, from a humble online etymological dictionary: "...Micmac
Algonquian tribe of the Canadian Maritimes and Newfoundland, from mi:kemaw, a native name said to mean lit. 'allies' ..." Are you saying micmac is French idiom for someone who is litigious? Itzik Basman

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, your eyes must have been buggy, all right. This would explain why you missed the fact that the words in the last few posts in this thread were all from kidneystones.

As to how that search will go, I am definitely not holding my breath.

Here's the thing of it: I realized what you quoted was from the other guy. You'll find it, I'm sure. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Are you saying micmac is French idiom for someone who is litigious?

Itzik Basman

No, it means "funny or shady business", and is often used to describe the shady or underhand dealings of politicians and lawyers.... as well as people like Kidneystones on BHTV, who lie, equivocate, simulate, and act in a generally dishonest manner.

Quoting Francoamerican: No, it means "funny or shady business", and is often used to describe the shady or underhand dealings of politicians and lawyers....

as well as people like Kidneystones on BHTV, who lie, equivocate, simulate, and act in a generally dishonest manner.

Thanks Franco. I am not overly familiar with, and am generally uninterested in, Mr. Stones's oeuvre. On another point from another thread, but while I have a bit of your attention, most people I know--some who make more and most who make less--would say that in most circumstances, and particularly while working on government subsidization, $500,000.00 a year U.S. is a lot of money to earn. And one can say that and give two, no, make that three, cheers for Capitalism. Your comments on that point, as I remember them, were quite resonant and rightfully so. a la prochaine Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: On another point from another thread, but while I have a bit of your attention, most people I know--some who make more and most who make less--would say that in most circumstances, and particularly while working on government subsidization, $500,000.00 a year U.S. is a lot of money to earn. And one can say that and give two, no, make that three, cheers for Capitalism. Your comments on that point, as I remember them, were quite resonant and rightfully so.

a la prochaine

Itzik Basman

Three cheers for capitalism and four cheers for democracy! And E M Forster be damned.