Messages

Does Fishing for Thoughts: A Scanner's Guide to Telepathy do anything?

This is less about the games he is making and more about his American nationality.  The Iranian government are going to use him as a scape goat for the Iranian public to get angry at and they are going to use him as a bargaining chip to help end the sanctions against them.

Nancy Pelosi always organizes Demcratic congressmen to split the their vote for controversial bills.  She does it so Democrats can say they weren't for or against a bill.

Do you have a source for that? It doesn't seem impossible, mind you, but given how undisciplined Democratic Congresspeople have historically tended to be, I'd be surprised if Pelosi had the ability to pull something like that, much less do it consistently.

Honestly, it is speculation in this case.  I know for a fact that she organized a split vote for the debt ceiling deal and a couple of other bill, but haven't read anything for this bill.  Since the Democratic vote exactly 93 to 93 and this bill is very controversial, I just assumed that Pelosi did what she usually does.  Also, Democratic congressmen have become more united and disciplined after the last midterm election.


I don't understand why we still have these laws that prioritise security over human rights.  If this was right after 9/11 and everyone worried about another mass killing, then I would understand why people would people would give the government more power.  Since it have been over a decade since 9/11, we should know that is unnecessary to give the miltiary such powers.

I think it's appalling. A small smattering of senators from both parties voted no in the Senate, but otherwise the support for it was pretty much uniform. In the House, Democrats were split down the middle and the strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Regardless of party affiliation, I am extremely disappointed by everyone involved in approving that bill.

Does it help that Obama said he has "serious reservations" about signing the law and that he promised that he would never use it?  I am sure that the provision about indefinite imprisonment will be removed later just like how guantanamo bay was closed.

In the House, Democrats were split down the middle.

You know that is intentional?  Nancy Pelosi always organizes Demcratic congressmen to split the their vote for controversial bills.  She does it so Democrats can say they weren't for or against a bill.

That's a small relief. I'm curious. Do you think that there's any way that this could avoid being ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It seems difficult to get to the Supreme Court without a trial.

I think people have made too big of a deal about warrantless wiretaps and waterboarding those three mass-killing al Queda leaders, but this is different.  I already felt some disconfort when Obama approved a target killing of an American, but al-Awlaki needed to die. When we give the government the power to imprison people without trial, we are taking a step towards having a police state.  

TSoG seems to have many themes relating to the threat a military opposes to democracy.  What is your opinion on Obama signing a law that allows indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens?

It looks like what SmartyPants is saying is that lump sums of money encourage growth, which increases revenue;

No, that is not what I am saying. Like Craig said, investments do not change demand.  Investments do however help businesses increase supply.  Despite the recession, demand for some goods and services has increased.  Investments help businesses grow, but growing a business only works if there is more demand then the current supply.  So investing in a shrinking industry will not create jobs, but investing in a growing industry will.  For example, demand for solar panels has decreased in recent years, so investing in a solar panel factory will not create jobs.  On the other hand, demand for oil is still higher the current supply, so investing in a pipeline that increase oil production will create jobs.  If you want to look at an anti-investment approach, look at Venezuela.  After Chavez scared off foreign investors, his country has not been able to raise the money to increase oil production, so the Venezuela economy is stagnating instead of growing.

If I may take the liberty of assuming your arguments reflect those commonly held by members of the political parties you seem to affiliate yourselves with, it would seem that the Republican approach focuses more on promoting bold, risky enterprise that not everyone can pull off, but which may blossom into great success;  on the other hand, the Democratic approach would seem to be more about giving the masses sufficient income that a prospective entrepreneur might not risk all in his or her attempt to rise to success, and have a good shot at some measure of achievement whether or not he or she can ever become truly great.

You basicly described Republicans as capitalist and democratics as socialist.  You are correct that Republicans believe in a free market where the best earn more money.  The way you describe Democrats seem incorrect.  There are socialist in the Democratic party like there are libertarians in the Republicans party, but most Democratics also believe in free market.  The major difference between the two parites is that Republicans prefer to increase economic prosperity and growth, while Democrats prefer to increase economic equality.

Of course: there's nothing wrong with being the 1%.

For a college humor video, that was pretty disappointing.  I don't care that all their facts are incorrect, yet I do care that the video was boring and corny.  The premise is funny, but it seems to be poorly done.

Tom Clancy is going to have a new Rainbow Six game where the terrorist group was going to be people fed up with economic inequality.  The game was going to use real footage of occupy wall street in the game, but they decided against it after looking at the occupy wall street footage.  Apparently, it is hard to believe that the pot smoking drum circles would become a sophisticated terrorist organization.

So I could see where both sides were coming from, right up until the part where SmartyPants was saying that presidents shouldn't behave like politicians. That's silly, from my point of view.

The president is suppose to act like a leader and be above the partisan bickering.  Unlike his predecessors, Obama participates in the partisan bickering instead of trying to bring the parties together.

Let's take a trip down memory lane! You may recall that, at the point that health care was on the table, Democrats controlled the White House as well as both houses of Congress. Even with that, Obama still decided to try to compromise with Republicans. And who could forget when Obama scuttled the public option over the vehement protests of his own base?

Obama didn't compromise with Republicans.  Obama original health care plan was so far to the left that he couldn't get many members of his own party to vote for it.  Obama had to compromise with other Democrats (not with any Republicans) to get Democrats to vote for it.

B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.

That table is a visualization of data from the Senate. See for yourself. Unless you think the Senate is doctoring its own numbers on procedural vote counts, I think you have to concede that filibustering is much more prevalent these past three years than it has been at any other time for which such numbers are available in our history.

Maybe next time you should have pick the non-bais source first.  Also, the increase in fillibusters is because of the increase in partisan bills.  Previous presidents usually bring bipartisan bills to the floor, but times have changed.  Bill Clinton was willing to work with Newt Gingrich because they are both moderates. On the other hand, Obama isn't willing to work with Republicans because his beliefs are too far to the left to compromise with the right.

Republican strategists were quite vocal about this fact, with Senator Jim DeMint stating that he wanted health care to be Obama's "Waterloo." If you have some sort of source that suggests that Obama made no compromises and the Republicans were willing to negotiate, now would be a good time for you to cite one.

I never even heard of Jim Demint before.  How does he represent all of the congressional Republicans?  I once read that a congresswomen (I can't remember her name) who once said that she wants to make drunk driving legal after 4am because she believes everyone is drunk at that time already.  Even though she is a Democrat, I don't believe her stance is shared by the colleagues in her party.

And let's not forget the debt ceiling fiasco, and Boehner threatening to shut down the government, and so on and so on.

I know some Republicans threatened to shut down the government, but I don't remember Boehner saying that himself.  I do remember Obama threatening to veto anything that didn't increase taxes.  Republicans were willing to increase the debt ceiling if there were spending cuts.  How big the spending cut would be and where they would take place was up for negotiations.  The brinkmanship problem came when Obama said he would shut down the government if there weren't tax increases, while many congressional Republicans refused to increases taxes.  In the end Obama backed down on increasing taxes, while Republicans agreed to cut only a small amount (the cuts weren't even big enough to cover the interest we pay on the national debt).

Simply, Republicans in Congress have set a new historical bar for obstructionism during Obama's presidency. That is not a matter of debate: the numbers are right here.  I suppose you could argue that they did so with good intentions, but we're talking about whether it's okay for Democrats to call them radical.

That is more politcal b.s.  While Republicans disagree on a bill because they don't think it is best for the country, the Democrats spin that as them being "obstuctionist".  Before even trying to offer a concession to Republicans, Obama starts making speaches on how Republicans are obstuctionist.  The one time that I remember that Obama did things correctly was with extending the bush tax cuts.  At first, Obama told Republicans that he was willing to extend tax cuts for the middle class, if Republicans would allow him to extend unemployment benefits.  Republicans told him "no" because Obama couldn't even get moderate Democrats to agee to letting the tax cuts expire.  Then, Obama finally gave Republicans an offer that can be taken seriously.  Republicans agreed that they would extend unemployment benifts for the third time in exchange for Democrats agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.  Of course, extending tax cuts for everyone alienated Obama's strong support from the far left.  To appease his far left supporters, Obama has refused to conceded anything ever since.

Instead of debating on a compromise, the Democrat leaders are lying and naming calling.  Of course, Republicans don't want to work with the same people who are calling them "crazy" and "radical".  It shows that they find winning elections to be more important then running the government.

*How did the Cult hide the books in the fourth cypt, if "no man has successfully mapped the thing"?
*Are all the cypts from the same civilization/time period?

I think you are missing my point.  Smart investors are only going to invest in things that are going to grow in value.  While demand for some stuff goes down, demand for other stuff goes up.  Investments are the tool for businesses to keep up with demand.  For example, demand for cars is down, while demand for natural gas is increasing.  The car industry isn't selling more stock because they don't plan on expanding, yet the oil industry is asking for investments so they can purchase equipment for fracking.  Even though jobs are loss in the car industry, the oil industry is able to create more jobs due to investments.  Of course, people who have jobs have more consumer confidence, then those who don't.  If one reduces investment because of tax increases, then one will slow down the growth of growing industries.

Like Republicans and Democrats, we both agree that a tax cut would help.  Also like the parties, we tend to disagree with how it should be paid for.  Right?

Social security will already run out before I am old enough to retire, so it must be a requirment to pay for the payroll tax cut.  Since tax cuts are more beneficial for economic growth then government spending, it would be best to pay for the payroll tax cut with spending cuts.  I am against paying for a temporary payroll tax cut with a permanent income tax increase, because it will be harmful to the economy. 

The votes in the Iowa Caucus determine my view. Yes, libertarians have gotten more vocal, but with a huge number of young republicans voting libertarian, it doesn't seem like a passing thing.

When Ron Paul drops out of the race, we probably won't see the libertaiians nearly as much.

As do some republicans. Failure to acknowledge the good points and flaws of both sides will lead to bias. Some democrats make misleading comments, as do some republicans. Even Mitt Romney does it. So yes, your post implied that all democrats lie, which is certainly not true. It's a problem, but a problem that is shared equally by both sides.

Your article claims that the Romney add has Obama saying "“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” while Obama really said  “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”  I find it ironic, because I remember that the 2008 McCain campaign accused Obama of lying for putting those exact words in thier mouths.

I am a little more understanding of Romney because his job right now isn't to run the country.  When Romney is playing politics, it doesn't get in the way of running the government. When Obama and Boehner play politics, they aren't doing thier jobs.  When Obama refuses to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election in order to help reelection campaign, he is acting more like a politician then a president.  When Boehner has a bill that removes Obamacare passed in House while knowing it will either be shot down by the Senate or vetoed by the white house, he is acting more like a politician then a lawmaker.

I was okay with Campaign Obama of going on The View and SNL, but I find it tacky for a President to go on Letterman or The View.  As a President, Obama should be focusing on fixing the economy and winning the war on terror instead of campaigning on talk shows.

If the payroll tax cut was permanent tax cut, then I would agree that it would help the economy.  Since the payroll tax cut is temporary, it will not change spending habits a.k.a. consumption.  Also, the bottom half of the country has accumulated so much debt that most discretionary incomes are going towards the debt that has been gathered during the Clinton and Bush eras. 

Lets say Craig wants to expand his business.  He currently doesn't have the money to do so himself.  Lucky for Craig, Uncle Moneybags gets to keep $10,000 more of his money because of a tax cut.  Because of America's low capital gains tax, Uncle M. is willing to make a risky investment in Craig's company.  Using the extra $10,000 of discretionary income, Uncle M buys 1,000 shares of Sinister Design stock.  Using the extra $10,000, Craig is able to rent office space, buy more computers, and hire some employees.  Using the resources acquired by Uncle M's investment, Craig and his employess bring in a steady stream of profit (or they go out of business).  Uncle M is rewarded for his risky investment by selling his stocks at a higher value or by receiving dividends (or his stocks become worthless if the business goes under).  Companies don't issue more stock and investors don't buy stock unless they believe that the company can become more profitable by expanding.  As you can see from my theoretical example, investment is an important part of economy.  Because of the investment, Craig was able to employ more workers then he could on his own.

I think you forgot that the Bush tax cuts effected everyone.  Some people who had to pay taxes under Clinton, didn't have to pay under Bush.  With a smaller tax base, the people who were still paying ended up paying a greater percentage of the total taxes. 

The rich got richer compared to everyone else, because the rich invested better.  Many in the middle class put a lot of their money into home ownership, while the rich invested in foreign stock.  Instead of homes increasing in value like they have for the last two decades, the housing bubble busted.  The middle class ended up losing money on their investment; because they paid more for their homes then they are currently worth.  Third world countries such as China, India, and Brazil had a huge economic boom in the last decade, so the rich who own the foreign stock ended up earning a lot of money.  I don't understand how some people think the rich are nefarious for earning more money by having good financial sense.

There is a reason why Congressional Republicans (not all Republicans, mind you--just the ones representing the party in Congress) are widely looked upon as radicals. Mitch McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, infamously remarked that, in the face of all our national problems, his number one priority was not to solve them, but rather to make Obama a one-term president. Congressional Republicans then followed this up by filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy, betting that voters would blame Obama when the economy failed to improve. And who could forget the debt ceiling disaster? John Boehner just kept walking away from good faith negotiations over and over again, dragging us to the brink of defaulting on our international obligations.

A) Democrats and the mainstream media always bring up the comment from Mitch McConnell (a Senator) about how he wants Obama out of office. Even when the Senate approves a bill and House Republicans don't,   the mainstream media implies that the Senator is obstructing in the House.
B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.  This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't imply that every filibuster was Republicans trying to keep the economy broken.  Many of the filibusters were not related to the economy, while others were Republicans trying to save jobs.
C) Obama is the cause of the polarized political climate.  Obama refused to do anything bipartisan when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House.  While earlier presidents such as Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and even W. Bush were respectful and willing to work with their rivals, Obama snubbed the rival party.  During the health care debate, Obama only had to make the health care bill bipartisan enough to win one Republican senator, but Obama refused to compromise with Republicans.  Obama only started talking about the parties working together after Democrats lost the House and the supermajority in the Senate.  Since Obama only wants to be bipartisan when he needs Republican votes, Republicans don't take him serious.
D) You failed to mention that the Republican controlled House has passed dozens of bills that would fix the economy.  Too bad Senate Democrats shoot the bills every time.
E) Republicans aren't voting for Democratic proposals because it usually involves more deficit spending or raising taxes during a recession.  Democrats prefer to spin things as Republicans are trying to prevent Obama from improving the economy

I know you identify with the Republicans, so maybe it's hard for you to see it, but for someone viewing this from outside the GOP tent, these things really make the current crop of Republicans in Congress look like cynical, power-hungry jackals willing to scuttle the US economy for a shot at reclaiming the White House. "Radical" is just a more succinct way of putting it.

My point exactly.  Because of the propaganda from the liberal fear mongers, people mistakenly believe that Republicans are trying to destroy the economy to get out Obama out office, while in reality they are trying to be fiscally conservative by trying to stop tax increases and deficit spending.  Like Glenn Beck, the Democratic leaders are taking a speck of truth and turning into a ridiculous conspiracy.

I'm expecting a split republican vote between Romney as the candidate and Paul as a third party candidate. The only incumbent who hasn't won in the past twenty-five years was George Bush I, and that was only because Ross Peirot decided to run.

I am assuming/hoping that Ron Paul is smart enough to not hand the election over to Obama by running as a third party canidate.

Your point being? They voted for him because they believed he was a libertarian. Regardless of what Paul believes, that means the Republican party is shifting to more libertarian views.

I don't think the Republicans are more libertarian then they were pre-Obama.  Libertarians have become more vocal and active in politics recently, because they have become so angry at Obama for trying to move the country towards socialism and by him trying to increase the deficit.

Sorry, but this post seems a bit biased to me. It's hard to have a debate when someone accuses the entire other side of using b.s. I'm going to say the same thing that I say to everyone who thinks a certain party is 'lying'

I have seen/read that Barack Obama, Debbie Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid make misleading, false comments with the obvious purpose of scoring political points.  It is possible that there are other Democrats who having accused the Republican party of being hijacked by radicals, but they don't tend to be heard as much in the news.

Get out of the competitive spirit, and consider the possibility that most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation. Both the party you support and the other party.

I have considered that "most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation", but I rejected that after years of reading political news.  Most politicians will work for the good of the country as long as it doesn't get in the way of their reelection chances.  There are a few politicians such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul who will risk not being reelected to do what they believe is right, but they are rare.  Let's take Obama's American Jobs Act as an example.  The president introduced the American Jobs Act in a joint session of Congress.  Many Republicans were cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech, because the speech preached partisan ideas such as infrastructure spending and said the plan would be fully paid for.  Even though Obama mentioned some exclusively Democratic ideas such as extending unemployment for a third time, Obama's speech said he was willing to compromise.  His speech conveniently left out that he wanted to fund the bill by raising taxes on the rich by not allowing them to get tax breaks for charitable contributions.  By wanting to permanently raise taxes, Obama clearly didn't expect Republicans to allow the bill to be passed and only wanted to use the bill for his reelection campaign.  Obama then left Washington D.C. (where he and Republican can negotiate on a compromise), so he use go to almost exclusively swing states and use bill as an excuse to start his reelection campaign. This is one of many examples of Obama playing politics instead of governing.