Hot Fudge Sunday March 6

Taking power: Benghazi residents stand on a task inside a security forces compound (image from the Associated Press)

Sundays bring us the political talk shows. If you see something interesting on one of them, jump on the comment board and talk about it. Libya and the Budget Battle dominate the shows this week. According to Politico, here is the lineup for this week’s shows:

Meet the Press (NBC) — White House chief of staff Bill Daley discusses the President’s involvement in the budget battle. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, provides her opinion on the budget battle, as well as her aspirations for President.

This Week (ABC) — Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, will give his views on the violence in Libya.

Face the Nation (CBS) — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) weighs in on the budget. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, talks about both the budget and the US’s reaction to Moammar Qaddafi’s escalating violence.

State of the Union (CNN) — The upcoming House Homeland Security Committee’s hearing on the “radicalization of Muslim Americans” will be discussed with the committee chairman, Representatives Peter King (R-NY), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Ellison is the first Muslim elected to Congress. Libya is also on the agenda, with former Libyan Immigration Minister Ali Errishi and Stephen Hadly, former national security adviser to President George W. Bush.

Fox News Sunday — Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who chairs the House Republican Conference, will most likely focus on the budget. The show will also cover Snyder v. Phelps with Margie Phelps, the lawyer-daughter of Westboro Baptist Church’s founder.

Newsmakers (CSPAN) — Representative Hal Rogers (R-KY), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, will talk budget.

Political Capital (Bloomberg TV) — Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), talks about the budget, debt limits, and possible cuts.


About Michael Weiss

Michael is now located at http://www.logarchism.com, along with Monotreme, filistro, and dcpetterson. Please make note of the new location.
This entry was posted in Hot Fudge Sunday. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Hot Fudge Sunday March 6

  1. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gregory was waaaay to easy on “I’ll spew my talking point regardless the question” Bachmann. After the first couple, he should have been cutting her off and redirecting the question.

    Does ANYONE have any independent corroboration of Bachmann’s claim of the hidden $105 billion funding in the Healthcare Act? My searches cannot find anything.

  2. filistro says:

    How did I miss this last week? Seems appropriate in this thread.

    Hillary Clinton’s praise of Al Jazeera annoys FOX News.

    “Like it or hate it, it is really effective,” Clinton told a group of lawmakers. “In fact, viewership of Al-Jazeera is going up in the United States because it is real news.”

    “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news that is not providing information to us, let alone foreigners,” said.

  3. filistro says:

    This is interesting… Daley goes on MTP and terrifies the Freepers. They think he’s smooth, strong and competent, and will be much more successful than Axelrod at “selling the sick, twisted, dangerous policies Obama is trying to foist on this country.” They fear he will even make Obama look “sane, moderate and reasonable.”

    As one of them agrees this morning, succinctly, after watching Daley talking to David Gregory…

    “You nailed it. He never heard Obama look at anything based on politics… blah, blah, blah… one slick salesman. Looks like a statesman, too. I nearly threw up.”

    LOL… “looks like a statesman, too….”

    Nothing smells better than Freeper Fear on a frosty winter morning 🙂

  4. rgbact says:

    Been checking out Al-Jezeera-English lately. Seems like nothing more than CNN,except more lefty. So what is Hillary complaining about? Is she reading the Arabic version and its so much better. If CNN can’t beat MSNBC, I don’t have great hopes for Al-Jazeera. I do admit Fox seems to try to bash them. But hey, its their competitor.

  5. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg,

    You do understand that A-J is NOT an American institution? That it is an Qatar based, independent news agency, begun as an alternative to the Middle Eastern state run news agencies. That it hires mostly Britains for its English-speaking arm.

    It is NOT in competition for the American market with CNN, Fox or MSNBC, but an international news agency acting on the international level.

    The main reason Americans should watch A-J is for specifically a NON-AMERICAN viewpoint, ie: to see from a DIFFERENT perspective.

  6. filistro says:

    @Max… You do understand that A-J is NOT an American institution?

    Max, Max… don’t you know anything?

    They’re all the same. MSNBC, CNN, AL Jazeera, the Obama adminstration, the Muslim Caliphate, the “homosexual agenda”, the lib’ruls, Code Pink, ACORN, Osama bin Laden… they all meet regularly to co-ordinate their goals and plans, which are:

    1.) to impose a communist Muslim world rule governed by Sharia law

    and

    2.) make Glenn Beck cry

  7. Monotreme says:

    Fili:

    I put this over in “The Illusion of Public Opinion”:

    Submitted on 2011/03/04 at 08:43
    As a sign of how low we’ve sunk, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls Al Jazeera “real news” as opposed to, you know, the crap we’re handed in this country:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/hillary-clinton-calls-al-_n_830890.html

  8. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    fili,

    Sorry! My bad!

    But, what can you expect from a pore iggnernt southern-born, Texan-by-choice, provincial lout who continuously hones his southern, hillbilly accent.

    I jest hopes that I kin lern sumpin here.

  9. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oh, and rg,

    I meant to point out that if you insist on placing your “left/right” map on top of an international news agency you can always see if you can access Al Akhbaria, the Saudi state-run agency, for another view.

  10. filistro says:

    Daley says… “If anyone thinks in this last election the American people were voting for more partisanship, more saying “no”…. they’re going to have a rude awakening in the next election.”

    Amen.

    The contrast with Bachmann is really kind of stark and brutal, isn’t it?

  11. filistro says:

    Daley and Bachmann… who would YOU rather have in a position of power within a presidential administration?

    Now, there’s an interesting poll question.

    I read a comment over at National Review where they discussed all the up-and-comers the Republicans have presently got training down in the minor leagues… many, many bright lights and not-yet-ready-for-prime-time players.

    Unfortunately, this cycle the GOP has to field a major league team of waifs, strays, klutzes, mental defectives and lovable losers that makes the Pirates look like World Series contenders.

  12. rgbact says:

    Yes Max, I realize that. So does Hillary want me to learn Arabic and watch it? The English version seems catered to non-Muslims, and as mentioned, seems like a more lefty CNN. I wasn’t wowed by any new info. Yes Hillary, us dumb Americans aren’t big on international news. We have 50 states of our own and Charlie Sheen to keep track of.

    But thanks Hillary for telling the world that we’re a bunch of moronic Fox news watchers who can only hope to be as informed as MiddleEasterners. Just like we have extremists and corrupt elections. Yes, America sucks…we get it.

  13. Monotreme says:

    I think on rgbact’s world (you know, the one with the green sky), that “lefty” means the same thing as Bush’s aide who called their opponents “the reality-based community”.

  14. filistro says:

    Bachmann interview strategy.

    1.) invent false talking point (105 billion dollars!)

    2.) write talking point on cardboard placard ( 105 billion dollars!)

    3.) surround talking point with word salad (105 billion dollars!Obamacare105 billion dollars!American people105 billion dollars!outrageous105 billion dollars!Tea Party stronger than ever105 billion dollars!spending and defcits105 billion dollars!)

    4.) show placard and repeat word salad no matter what question is asked.

    Now that’s leadership.

    And I assure you, there are still many, many Freepers pushing for a Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012.

    Sigh… that would just be HEAVEN, wouldn’t it 😉

  15. filistro says:

    @rgb… But thanks Hillary for telling the world that we’re a bunch of moronic Fox news watchers who can only hope to be as informed as MiddleEasterners.

    I don’t want to alarm you or anything, rg… but “the world” doesn’t need Hillary to tell them that 😉

  16. rgbact says:

    Based on Mitch McConnel’s appearance on MTP, gonna be a rough 2 weeks of negotiations. Very confrontational/po’d. Basically said Obama doesn’t give a damn about the deficit. Shutdown here we come.

  17. Monotreme says:

    Monotreme says:
    March 2, 2011 at 08:15 (Edit)

    Loved this quote from Charles Walcott, over at Politico’s Arena:

    Michele Bachmann will appeal to those who like Sarah Palin but wish she would be a little less intellectual. She will be as viable in 2012 as Dennis Kucinich was in 2008. She will have an eventful ten or fifteen minutes of fame and the media will love her for the same reason that kids love zoos.

    Here’s her “evidence” of the $105 billion:

    http://bachmann.house.gov/UploadedFiles/CRS_Report_02_10_11_PPACA.pdf

    What’s hilarious is that she didn’t just hold up a placard with $105 followed by nine zeroes. The placard had twelve digits on it. Clearly, her numbers were accurate down to the very last dollar. Amazing.

  18. filistro says:

    @rg Shutdown here we come.

    David Brooks(who is a very smart conservative, no wonder his own side detests him) made a couple of really good points on MTP.

    1.) “It’s essential to cut, but in this economy we can’t cut programs that generate growth.”

    2.) “We need wealth redistubution, but we need to reverse the kind of redistribution we currently have. Right now we have wealth flowing from struggling young people to the wealthy elderly. That process needs to be turned around so some of the holdings of the wealthy elderly flow back to bolster the productive efforts of young people.”

    From a REPUBLICAN!!! It helps restore my faith in sensible governance… and good old American common sense.

  19. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg,

    “The English version seems catered to non-Muslims, and as mentioned, seems like a more lefty CNN. I wasn’t wowed by any new info. Yes Hillary, us dumb Americans aren’t big on international news. We have 50 states of our own and Charlie Sheen to keep track of.

    You used “seems” twice in one sentence. To what do you compare the A-J “catering” of which you speak? And, if an international news agency based in one of the most conservative areas of the world seems “lefty” to you, what conclusion can you infer of how that speaks to American news?

    And WTF is this fixation with Hillary? Don’t you believe that, in this global economy and speed of light communications, international news has SOME import? Do you not understand that the other 5.8 BILLION people in the world, seeing an American making statements as yours this morning, may well see that as arrogance and thus take a negative view of Americans as a whole? Ever wonder why that seems to be the case nowadays?

    Just asking.

  20. Monotreme says:

    I’ve been through the CRS document referenced above and here’s what I found.

    I get $103,689M (i.e. $104 billion) which is close enough to Rep. Bachmann’s number. I bet she made some assumptions about the “TBD” amounts and that also gave her the amazing 12-digit number she showed on MTP.

    Of these expenditures, the seven largest, in order, are:

    $40,208M for the Children’s Health Insurance Program
    $15,000M for a Preventative Public Health fund
    $10,005M for Medicare/Medicaid innovation
    $9,500M for community health centers
    $6,000M for Community Operated and Oriented Plans (i.e. health insurance exchanges, as suggested by many Republicans in Congress)
    $5,000M for temporary high-risk health insurance pools
    $5,000M for an early retiree reinsurance program

    All of these are over 10 years, by the way, so even if we were to eliminate these, it would represent $10B per year, not the $100B that the Tea Party promised us.

    And, Rep. Bachmann, which of these programs are you gonna cut? The ones I listed here are almost $81B of the $105B you keep spouting, so you’ve gotta cut these first. Are you gonna take the health insurance money from little kids? ‘Cuz I gotta tell you, that’s probably gonna make people mad.

  21. rgbact says:

    Max-

    I use “seems” cuz I only have checked it out a few times. My initial reaction was it want’ really anything new, just CNN/BBC from Qatar. If you watch it alot–point me to the good stuff. I’m trying to gain some knowledge of the MidEast beyond what I learn from Glenn Beck.

    My fixation with Hillary is that she bashes our country alot. It was why I thought picking a politician for a diplomat job was a terrible move. But I know qualifications aren’t a big deal in this administation.

    The Hill has initial Senate race rankings out! Why not, its been 2 months already.

  22. filistro says:

    rgb… were you a semi-regular at the original 538 site? Your “voice” is so familiar to me, it’s driving me crazy. I’m pretty sure our paths have crossed somewhere, and 538 would be the most likely place.

    If you were, don’t tell me what your handle was… make me guess. It’s a fun challenge for me. (Maddening, but fun… ;-))

  23. Jean says:

    rgb,

    You said: I’m trying to gain some knowledge of the MidEast beyond what I learn from Glenn Beck.

    Beyond specifically what? What knowledge of the MidEast have you learned from Glenn Beck?

  24. rgbact says:

    Mono-

    I’m confused. Is this spending beyond the $900+B CBO was forecasting? So 11% more? Given she wants to repeal PPACA….I’m thinking she wants to cut all of those expenses.

    Just kidding about Glenn Beck, Jean. Although I’m sympathetic to people looking outside of America for a different perspective. Local cable gives us Russia Today–and I’ve been amazed at the stuff they report that I’d never see in the MSM.

  25. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg,

    “My fixation with Hillary is that she bashes our country alot.”

    Since she does that “alot”, it wouldn’t be too much to ask you to give 4 or 5 specific quotes and the dates when Hillary “bashed” the US. I’m sure you have way more than that many close at hand, but give me those examples so I may see your point.

    Thanks

  26. Monotreme says:

    rgbact:

    You would have to ask Rep. Bachmann. She honestly doesn’t make any sense to me.

  27. Monotreme says:

    Okay, I was wrong. I had to watch the sodding tape a dozen times, but she holds up a card that says:

    $105,464,000,000

    but her fingers are covering the last two digits so I’m guessing they’re zeroes. Still, it wasn’t a 12-digit number like I said earlier.

  28. dcpetterson says:

    @filistro

    “We need wealth redistubution, but we need to reverse the kind of redistribution we currently have. Right now we have wealth flowing from struggling young people to the wealthy elderly. That process needs to be turned around so some of the holdings of the wealthy elderly flow back to bolster the productive efforts of young people.”

    The problem with this particular talking point is that he’s working up to an argument to gut Social Security. If he had just said “the wealthy” instead of “the wealthy elderly” then that’d be noteworthy. But he’s trying out the new talking point we’re going to start seeing a lot of, that them lazy damn rich old farts are stealing from the kids and, thereby, driving up the deficit, and the solution is to get rid of FICA taxes in favor of expanded 401(k)’s.

  29. mclever says:

    @dcpetterson

    I noticed that odd “elderly” in that quote from David Brooks and wasn’t sure what to make of it. My thought was, “The elderly are wealthy? Since when! Usually we’re worried about keeping retirees out of poverty.”

    Thanks for cluing me in to the new talking point.

  30. filistro says:

    dc.. as you know, I’m not fond of “slippery slope” arguments. I don’t think withholding government money from the wealthy elderly is a first step to getting rid of FICA taxes. I don’t believe rich old farts need their monthly government checks… and I don’t think taking that money from them will destroy social security.

    In Canada this is handled sensibly by paying everybody their Canada Pension and Old Age Security once they become eligible by age… and then clawing some or all of it back based on income. Clawbacks start at around $50,000 and by the time a senior has $100,000 in annual income from any combination of work, private pension and investments, he/she is keeping very little of the money received from the government.

    Nobody complains about this clawback or finds it unfair. If you’re an old fart raking in $100 grand a year, why do you need a monthly check from the government?

  31. rgbact says:

    It’ll be interesting how “means testing” plays out. People like Howard Dean are against it. It “welfarizes” the entitlement programs. Dean and otheres realize that the popularity of entitlements has alot to do with their popularity among even richer folks. Making them more redistributive will end up undermining alot of that. So, part of me says I’m fine with means testing.

    Overall, liberals favoring of redistribuiton to pay for nearly everything may end up killing govt. It essentially says to people, govt is incapable of making fair programs for all citizens.

  32. mclever says:

    @rgbact

    I’m not particularly fond of “means testing” with Social Security, partly because I think it unnecessarily complicates the paperwork for insufficient gain. In my opinion, there should be a cap on benefits, which makes sense, since Social Security is basically supposed to be an insurance against poverty. However, I don’t like the cap on contributions. If the cap on contributions were eliminated, Social Security would be solvent for eternity, and everyone could still get their checks regardless of “means”.

  33. mclever says:

    @rgbact

    I will, however, dispute your suggestion that “means testing” somehow implies that the program is unfair. If the program is designed to help keep people out of poverty, then how would it be unfair to have some standard for whether or not you receive benefits? I could very easily make the argument that “means testing” ensures fairness of the system rather than unfairness.

    (And I still don’t like means testing.)

    Get what pieces you can back in income tax. If we’re giving the “wealthy” elderly too much, then the income tax should be catching that.

  34. filistro says:

    rgb… the thing with policies like “means testing” is that they are viewed very differently in prospect than in retrospect.

    Before a new policy is instituted, argument tends to center on abstract, objective analysis… is it fair, is it even-handed, will it damage the populace in any way?

    After a policy becomes law, perception shifts to the immediate and subjective… how does it affect ME? Am I suffering as a result of this?

    And if the answer is generally “no”, the furor dies down and ongoing opposition tends to be muted.

  35. filistro,

    I’m not fond of “slippery slope” arguments. I don’t think withholding government money from the wealthy elderly is a first step to getting rid of FICA taxes.

    Normally I’m not, either. However, it was the Reagan “welfare queen” meme that eventually turned into Gingrich’s welfare cut legislation. The path has been illustrated before, so why wouldn’t it be tried again?

  36. rgbact,

    So, part of me says I’m fine with means testing.

    If I read this correctly, you’re saying that you like means testing because it starts to make Social Security look like welfare, and if that happens you think it will be easy to kill the program, which is what you ultimately wish anyway. Am I correct?

  37. rgbact says:

    MW-

    Yes. The GOP was able to slash welfare. Once you can claim a govt program is mostly for slackers…you can start to undemine its support among the middle class. The entitlement programs were specifically designed to not seem like welfare. I’m just saying, if you solution to every govt funding problem is “tax the rich” it undermines the sense that govt can run fair programs and the middle class starts thinking govt is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme.

  38. rgbact,
    So given that you are opposed to welfare, I’m curious about two things:
    1) Why are you opposed to it?
    2) What would you suggest be done with the indigent?

  39. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg,

    Still waiting for some of those Hillary, “bashing America” quotes.

  40. rgbact says:

    Max-

    1) She put together some “reset” program with Russia, essentially bashing the former president to another country. I’m sure you thought it was funny but I doubt you’d see David Cameron come to the US saying what a loser Blair was. Leave the campaigning on US soil.
    2) Her whole foreign policy is based on “we’re not Bush”. Presumably, the American people that elected Bush twice are retards and the poor world had to endure the leader Americans thrust on them.
    2) She claimed in Nigeria that the US is familiair with corrupt election processes–ie Bush v. Gore was “corrupt”. Again, demeaning the US to make political points.
    3) She told Abu Dhabi women the US is familiar with “extremists” ie the TeaPartiers/Sara Palin. More politics.
    4) She said Al-Jezeera is real news and US news sucks, ie Fox sucks and Americans are retards for watching it.
    5) Then of course she said she had to “suspend disbelief” when talking to Gen Petraus, basically calling him a liar–right after Moveon.org impied the same. Guess she was trying to get some votes from the lefties.

    That said, Obama gave her a job which sends her out of the country the majority of the time. So maybe its the perfect job for her.

  41. shortchain says:

    rgbact,

    I suggest you read your last comment carefully and notice how many of the items require you to “interpret” her remarks from the standpoint that she’s bashing America in order to conclude she’s bashing America.

    This is technically termed “begging the question”, I believe.

  42. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg,

    I asked for quotes of Hillary “bashing the US” and you gave, as best as I can tell, some sort of ideological differences you may have. For example, (1) you use the word “essentially” and in (2) you use the word “presumably”, in (4) how is that any different a statement than Palin’s constant use of “lame stream media”?, did (5) occur since she became SoS?. In both of these cases there is a LOT of room for interpretation based on one’s ideology.

    If I say “America was wrong to invade Iraq in 2003, given the facts as were available from the IAEA in March 2003 and that Iraq was not a “clear and present” danger to America.” or “America was wrong to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps in the 40’s”, that is NOT bashing, but a statement of facts from which I base a conclusion. But, if I say “America has a judicial system that is among the worst in the world”, or “Canada is a much better country in every way than the US”, THOSE are examples of “bashing”.

    If you can’t put up exact quotes with the dates they were made, maybe you need to reevaluate exactly your opposition. After all, you said she does this “alot”! Quotes should be easy for you to post of some “bashing”!

  43. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Rg,

    I did not say anything about (3) you mentioned above. I feel it needed more attention than just a throwaway. Here’s Hillary’s statement:

    “You know we had some problems in some of our presidential elections. As you may remember, in 2000 our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of one of the men running for president was governor of the state. So we have our problems too.”

    So let’s look at Hillary’s statement.

    1st sentence. True, we have had some problems.
    2nd sentence. True Jeb Bush IS George Bush’s brother. Not necessarily a proof of the first sentence.
    3rd sentence. A restatement of the first sentence.

    Now let’s look at the gist of her statement, the legal aspect of the 2000 election that would cause someone to consider it a “problem.

    1) the SCOTUS had NEVER BEFORE inserted itself into a presidential election.
    2) In spite of being the party that MOST gripes about an “activist” judiciary, it was the GOP side that asked for SCOTUS review.
    3) The decision in Bush v. Gore split EXACTLY along ideological lines, 5-4.
    4) The SCOTUS, knowing it was on VERY shaky Constitutional grounds, stated in the majority decision, that the case SHOULD NOT be used for precedent! (“our consideration is limited to the present circumstances,”)

    Given these FACTS about the actual event, please tell me how this amounts to America “bashing”. Or are you of the opinion that speaking truth about not just the pluses but also the minuses of America is “bashing”. Have you never spoken negatively about the current President? If so, isn’t that then “bashing” America by your definition, since the President, as Head of State, IS America to the world?

    It sure is taking you a long time to post 4-5 quotes of Hillary “bashing” America from ALL those “alot” you were talking about. Not having trouble coming up with the real McCoy, are you?

  44. dcpetterson says:

    @Max
    In spite of being the party that MOST gripes about an “activist” judiciary, it was the GOP side that asked for SCOTUS review.

    It was worse than that. As soon as it became apparent that Florida was essentially a tie, Bush & Company started whining that Gore was going to take it to court, to have the courts decide the election rather than allowing the election process to play out. Gore said no, we were going to do it right, and follow Florida law. Then Bush went to court to stop the recounts.

    So, after obtaining Gore’s promise not to go to court, a promise extracted through the guilt-by-association of charging Gore with supporting the idea of an activist court overstepping its bounds — after doing that, Bush went to court to get SCOTUS to interfere with the election process.

    Not that that has anything to do with Ms. Clinton’s statement, other than to underline how unusual that election was, and the strange problems we really had during the course of the vote tabulation.

  45. rgbact says:

    Max-

    Hit Google on any of the topics I covered. You’ll instantly find the background quotes.

    She is the SoS—she’s not a politician or pundit. You seems confused by this. Her job is not to go to foreign countries and debate American politics, or to make other countries feel better by bringing the US down to their level. Her job is to present America in the best possible light. I’m sure you love her hackery–but just because more people in foreign countries agree with her than in the US, isn’t a reason to air our dirty laundry to them. Might be why only one other politician has been SoS in the last 50 years.

  46. dcpetterson says:

    rgbact
    Her job is to present America in the best possible light.

    No. Her job is to conduct diplomacy. If possible, by telling the truth to the world. She is doing an admirable job, and has been presenting the United States in a far better light than did anyone from the previous administration.

    You clearly are unable to present any quotes to back up your partisan miscategorization of Secretary Clinton’s public statements. It’s too bad you have nothing more than rightist talking points on this. It would have been useful if you had any actual statements to quote, but it seems you have only the re-filtered opinions of right-wing propagandists.

  47. rgbact says:

    MW-

    Its not that I’m opposed to welfare. Is that libs try to present govt programs as efficient alternatives to private systems . When programs have to rely on “soak the rich” to sustain them, it undermines the case to middle class folks that govt programs actually can work on their own. It probably works in the short term–but I think it undermines the case for govt in the long term. The fact that PPACA was sold as “don’t worry, someone else will pay for it” sums up that govt programs aren’t viable when people actually have to pay a fair price for them.

  48. Monotreme says:

    rgbact says:
    Hit Google on any of the topics I covered. You’ll instantly find the background quotes.

    OK, but I don’t have unlimited time so I’m just going to take #1. I hope you’ll accept that as a stand-in for the rest of the stack, since you’re obviously not arguing in good faith and using me as your unpaid research assistant.

    1) She put together some “reset” program with Russia, essentially bashing the former president to another country. I’m sure you thought it was funny but I doubt you’d see David Cameron come to the US saying what a loser Blair was. Leave the campaigning on US soil.

    So I Googled “some reset program with Russia Clinton” and got this:
    http://bit.ly/g7H4f0

    I don’t consider Andrew Breitbart a reliable source for anything other than toilet paper, so I scrolled down to the Christian Science Monitor site and got this article:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0306/clinton-looks-to-reset-us-russia-relations

    in which she said the horrible, US-bashing words:

    “We are entering into our renewed relationship with our eyes open. We think there are a number of areas where there could be cooperation … there are also areas where we strongly disagree.”

    OOOOH!!! MY EYES!!!! I can’t believe you made me read this horrible, anti-American screed! Now I’m going to need a gallon of Brain Bleach to get this out of my head.

  49. rgbact says:

    DC-

    I’d rather not go down a rathole of quote posting. Max already posted an obvious hack quote by Hillary about the 2000 elections. She compared the election integrity of the richest country on earth with that of a 3rd world country. She seems to be campaigning for Democrats in Nigeria.

    I think Fox just posted a clip of Roy Roemer for an into for Buddy Roemer. LOL. Are they twins? C’mon Fox, quality control.

  50. Monotreme says:

    rgbact says:

    “OOOH! Look! Geese!”

  51. rgbact,

    Is that libs try to present govt programs as efficient alternatives to private systems .

    And the efficient private alternatives you propose are…?

    When programs have to rely on “soak the rich” to sustain them, it undermines the case to middle class folks that govt programs actually can work on their own.

    Instead of speaking in generalities, how about you pick some specific examples to discuss.

    The fact that PPACA was sold as “don’t worry, someone else will pay for it” sums up that govt programs aren’t viable when people actually have to pay a fair price for them.

    Well, not exactly. I agree that the marketing oversold the savings, but the program as a whole is designed to increase personal responsibility. You do support increases in personal responsibility, don’t you?

  52. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg,

    So I have no alternative by your,

    a) trying to deflect to make it about ME (confused), or,
    b) not posting a few quotes to back up your assertion, or,
    c) you depending on RW bloggers to form your opinions for you,

    that you were simply spouting off on an ideological rant without truly finding out for yourself. Further, that you would rather spend time beating around the bush, insulting, blaming others and generally continuing to spout talking points instead of actually doing original thought and PROVING your assertion when challenged.

    Well played, my friend. Well played!

    Guess you do have a hard row to hoe, given that Condi Rice was little more than a W sycophant and Colin Powell endorsed Obama in 2008.

  53. rgbact,

    I’d rather not go down a rathole of quote posting.

    If you are going to assert that someone makes particular public statements, you are under an obligation if questioned to back that up with evidence to support it. Partisan hackery is generally frowned upon here.

    And before any of our conservative participants say it, do feel free to apply the same rules to our liberal participants.

  54. dcpetterson says:

    @rgbact

    When you are concerned with someone’s quotes, then posting the quotes which concern you is hardly a “rathole.” It’s more like “supporting your position.”

    As far as the PPACA having been sold as “someone else will pay for it ” — that’s kind of funny, because it seems to me that the Republicans are all upset about the individual mandate — that is, the requirement that people buy their own insurance. It seems to me that what the Republicans are objecting to is that “someone else” is not paying for it. (Let’s ignore for the time being the fact that the individual mandate was a Republican idea.)

    If we don’t have the PPACA, do you know what happens? People who can’t pay for health care go to the hospital when they get sick or injured — and then someone else pays for it. Again, the Republicans are upset that people are going to have to pay for their own health care.

    Your right wing talking points about the PPACA don’t make much sense, when put into the context of the other right wing talking points about the PPACA.

  55. rgbact says:

    MW/DC-

    Good point on the mandate….although as you mentioned its a GOP idea, and not suprisingly its the least popular part of the bill, as most people think its too high a cost for the meager benefits. But, its a nice hidden tax, as even I forgot about it.

    I was just trying to make a general point on “sharing the pain” when making changes to govt programs and also finding ways to reform govt systems to ensure the credibility of programs. Stuff like the lockbox.

  56. rgbact,

    I was just trying to make a general point on “sharing the pain” when making changes to govt programs and also finding ways to reform govt systems to ensure the credibility of programs.

    Yes, another general point. You do make an awful lot of those…but when pressed for specifics, somehow you almost never come through.

    Perhaps going a bit heavier on the specifics, and lighter on the general points, would serve you better. Otherwise you really do come across as a partisan hack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s