Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: There Will Be Blood

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805

    There Will Be Blood

    www.nytimes.com



    The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing. And that party now controls one house of Congress, which means that the country will not, in fact, be governable without that party’s cooperation — cooperation that won’t be forthcoming.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    another embarrassing opinion from crotchman....

    of course mr "I won and elections have consequences" obozo was always a person whose concern was governing all of America rather than ramming his agenda down the throats of the majority that did not want it....

    hey crotchman- how's that stimuloss working out??? lmao

    no wonder clowns like krugman saw their side get their asses handed to them three weeks ago...

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    742 Evergreen Terrace
    Posts
    11,540
    I have friends who went to Princeton and purposely avoided Krugman's classes because, while it would have been great to learn from a Nobel Prize winning economist, student consensus was that he's a piece of sh1t.

    "Republicans Are Meany Jerkheads" would have made for a better title given his whining.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    gotta say...i love this paragraph that was purposely kept out by the thread's author...

    Some explanation: There’s a legal limit to federal debt, which must be raised periodically if the government keeps running deficits; the limit will be reached again this spring. And since nobody, not even the hawkiest of deficit hawks, thinks the budget can be balanced immediately, the debt limit must be raised to avoid a government shutdown. But Republicans will probably try to blackmail the president into policy concessions by, in effect, holding the government hostage; they’ve done it before.
    yet when deals like the louisiana purchase or cornhusker kickback are negotiated in order to get a helathcare "reform" bill the majority of America does not want pushed through, krugman who is in favor of of gov't controlled healthcare, gives it the thumbs up....

    like i said, another embarrassing waste of bandwidth from crotchman.....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 11-23-2010 at 01:26 PM.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    lol.



    Yep, just "one side". No bias in that view, amirite?

  6. #6
    JetsFan2012
    Guest
    Yeah, right... and Nancy Pelosi was all about cooperation and compromise when her party ruled Congress.

    The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing.
    I'd say that's a pretty apt description of Obama's White House, actually.

    Not only is Krugman full of ****, he's completely short-sighted.

    Former Senator Alan Simpson is a Very Serious Person. He must be — after all, President Obama appointed him as co-chairman of a special commission on deficit reduction.

    So here’s what the very serious Mr. Simpson said on Friday: “I can’t wait for the blood bath in April. ... When debt limit time comes, they’re going to look around and say, ‘What in the hell do we do now? We’ve got guys who will not approve the debt limit extension unless we give ’em a piece of meat, real meat,’ ” meaning spending cuts. “And boy, the blood bath will be extraordinary,” he continued.
    In other words, Obama appointed a guy who has an absolute bloodlust for failure so long as it happens while the Republicans control the House. Yes, that's certainly productive.

    Krugman is a bitter old hack who adds nothing of worth to political discourse.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    What Krugman fails to point out is the Democrats have had outright control of Congress since 2006 and outright control of all three branches since 2008. They have failed to govern.

    I'm pretty confident that the President and the Republican House will work together and the obstruction is going to come from the hard core Democratic leadership which is far more left wing then the country generally is.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-23-2010 at 01:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Charter JI Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    obozo ...
    lol, first time I saw that one

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    its hysterical watching the meltdown in the liberal media since the election...here you have krugman already blaming the Republican congress two months before they take office...

    newsweak is making excuses for obama, claiming the problem is the job, not him- as they did with carter..



    then you've got the WasPost today finally coming to the conclusion obozo has no clue and needs to get someone else in there to "govern"....
    Obama needs a governor in the West Wing
    By Jonathan Capehart


    The other night, a friend and I did what just about every Democrat and progressive has been doing since Nov. 2: We debated what President Obama could -- must -- do to pull his presidency out of its downward spiral. The shock-and-awe of his campaign has given way to the awe-hell of his governing. The White House's failure to effectively champion its accomplishments, articulate a strategy (expiring Bush tax cuts) or aggressively exploit opportunities (failure to extend unemployment benefits) has everyone wondering if the administration can get its act together.

    Focusing on Obama's personnel, we agreed that the president needed to widen his circle of confidants beyond his Chicago security blanket. "He needs a governor," my friend said. My perfect candidates: Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) and Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.).

    As governors of struggling industrial states, Rendell and Granholm have had to make the painful budgetary decisions that Washington continues to put off. They have faced an angry and fearful electorate and have had to be inventive in addressing their states' problems. The people they govern are the very voters Obama continues to have trouble connecting with; remember that Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also won Michigan's "beauty contest," though Obama pulled his name from the Michigan ballot after the state Democratic Party broke national party rules by moving up its primary date.

    The key advantage to bringing Rendell or Granholm to the White House staff? Both governors were early backers of Clinton in 2008. Although they are party stars who wouldn't upset the base, they could bring an "outsider" perspective to the West Wing. And because of term limits, both will be available come January.

    But here's why I'd give Rendell the edge over Granholm:

    First, Rendell brings a wealth of political knowledge and experience. The governor was Philadelphia's district attorney and its mayor before becoming chairman of the Democratic Party during the 2000 presidential election cycle. Most important, he has not been shy about criticizing the president. Obama needs that kind of voice in the West Wing -- someone of unquestioned gravitas who will give unvarnished opinions about what he thinks will or won't work and who can help the president make clear to the American people that he is not some elitist far removed from their concerns. (Vice President Biden fills that latter role now as chair of the middle-class task force. But he could use some high-power reinforcements.)

    Rendell told Bloomberg News's Al Hunt last month that chief of staff is "the only job" he'd take in the White House. Of course, interim chief of staff Pete Rouse might well end up staying in the job permanently. But serious thought should be given to making Rendell, Granholm or someone else with similar executive experience a senior counselor to the president. That position would give him or her a role in helping the administration pull out of its policy and political nose-dive.

    "If I were president, I am not sure that I would offer Ed Rendell the job of chief of staff," Rendell told Hunt. "I am a free spirit. I tell the truth, and I like to mix it up. And that is not the Obama administration's modus operandi, to say the least."

    True. But that's exactly why the president should tap him.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...or_in_the.html

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    OBAM-GANESHA!!!! OH NOES!!!!

    RUN!!!!!!!

  11. #11
    JetsFan2012
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    its hysterical watching the meltdown in the liberal media since the election...here you have krugman already blaming the Republican congress two months before they take office...

    newsweak is making excuses for obama, claiming the problem is the job, not him- as they did with carter..


    LOL you gotta be ****ing kidding me.

    Obama proves to be a complete amateur when it comes to executive policy making, and all of a sudden the presidency is too much for one man to handle.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    742 Evergreen Terrace
    Posts
    11,540
    Quote Originally Posted by pauliec View Post
    LOL you gotta be ****ing kidding me.

    Obama proves to be a complete amateur when it comes to executive policy making, and all of a sudden the presidency is too much for one man to handle.
    Perhaps we need a president AND a premier, ay comrades?

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    its going to get very interesting when the debt ceiling needs to be raised and the GOP controlled House goes into revolt.

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,501


    What an ironically perfect picture -- showing Obama as the Hindu god of Shiva: The third god of the Hindu trinity who is entrusted with the task of destruction, thereby enabling regeneration.

    Exactly what Obama is doing as per the roadmap laid out by Saul Alinsky: Destroying our capitalist society so he can "regenerate" it as a socialist wasteland.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,924
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    its going to get very interesting when the debt ceiling needs to be raised and the GOP controlled House goes into revolt.
    The Democrats have been in charge the last 2 years and have run this country to the brink and you still back them. I say No Mas!

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    The Democrats have been in charge the last 2 years and have run this country to the brink and you still back them. I say No Mas!
    whether we like it or not, the federal government has near term obligations. You (and others) will say no mas, and guess what, the Gov't will shut down.

    the GOP will look like obstructionists (which they are) and it will be 1996 all over again.

    the right wing is not serious about deficit reduction or cutting spending, they just want power. when the debt ceiling is reached it will expose the game to all. And it won't be pretty.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    whether we like it or not, the federal government has near term obligations. You (and others) will say no mas, and guess what, the Gov't will shut down.

    the GOP will look like obstructionists (which they are) and it will be 1996 all over again.

    the right wing is not serious about deficit reduction or cutting spending, they just want power. when the debt ceiling is reached it will expose the game to all. And it won't be pretty.
    The country is in (WAY) worse shape now and the populus is far more informed.
    So, they won't be fooled like they were in 96.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by acepepe View Post
    The country is in (WAY) worse shape now and the populus is far more informed.
    So, they won't be fooled like they were in 96.
    fact is the country voted in overwhelming numbers to put the GOP in charge to in large part be obstructionists against obozo's incompetent and disasterous policies- the only one's denying this are the 37%ers...

    obozo and the dims strategy in the run-up to the '10 midterms was to portray the GOP as obstructionists....what was the verdict of the nation???

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    Many people would describe Democrats that exact way.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Liberals resort to conspiracy theories to explain Obama's problems

    Following two years of poor economic performance and electoral repudiation, liberalism is casting around for narratives to explain its failure - narratives that don't involve the admission of inadequacies in liberalism itself.

    For some, the solution is to lay the blame on President Obama. He hasn't been liberal enough. He can't communicate. "I cannot recall a president," Robert Kuttner says in the Huffington Post, "who generated so much excitement as a candidate but who turned out to be such a political dud as a chief executive." Obama is "fast becoming more albatross than ally."

    This is an ideological movement at its most cynical, attempting to throw overboard its once-revered leader to avoid the taint of his problems.

    But there is an alternative narrative, developed by those who can't shake their reverence for Obama. If a president of this quality and insight has failed, it must be because his opponents are uniquely evil, coordinated and effective. The problem is not Obama but the ruthless conspiracy against him.

    So Matt Yglesias warns the White House to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP - as though Chamber of Commerce SWAT teams, no doubt funded by foreigners, are preparing attacks on the electrical grid. Paul Krugman contends that "Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." Steve Benen explains, "We're talking about a major political party . . . possibly undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012." Benen's posting was titled "None Dare Call it Sabotage."

    So what is the proof of this charge? It seems to have something to do with Republicans criticizing quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. And opposing federal spending. And, according to Benen, creating "massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system."

    One is tempted to respond that it is $1 trillion in new debt, the prospect of higher taxes and a complicated, disruptive health-reform law that have created "massive economic uncertainty." For the purposes of this argument, however, it is sufficient to say that all these economic policy debates have two sides.

    Yet this is precisely what the sabotage theorists must deny. They must assert that the case for liberal policies is so self-evident that all opposition is malevolent. But given the recent record of liberal economics, policies that seem self-evident to them now seem questionable to many. Objective conditions call for alternatives. And Republicans are advocating the conservative alternatives - monetary restraint, lower spending, lower taxes - they have embraced for 30 years.

    It is difficult to overstate how offensive elected Republicans find the sabotage accusation, which Obama himself has come very close to making. During the run-up to the midterm election, the president said at a town hall meeting in Racine, Wis.: "Before I was even inaugurated, there were leaders on the other side of the aisle who got together and they made the calculation that if Obama fails, then we win." Some Republican leaders naturally took this as an attack on their motives. Was the president really contending that Republican representatives want their constituents to be unemployed in order to gain a political benefit for themselves? No charge from the campaign more effectively undermined the possibility of future cooperation.

    The sabotage accusation, once implicit, is now direct among panicked progressives. Part of the intention seems to be strategic - to discourage Obama from considering Clintonian ideological triangulation. No centrist concessions, the argument goes, will appease Republicans who hate the president more than they love the country. So Obama should double down on liberalism, once again.

    It is very bad political advice. It also indicates a movement losing contact with political reality. When an ideology stumbles, its adherents can always turn to alcohol - or to conspiracy theories. It is easier to recover from alcohol. Conspiracy thinking is not only addictive, it is tiresome. It precludes the possibility of interesting policy debate or genuine disagreement - how can you argue with a plot?

    In 1964, John Stormer, a sabotage theorist of the right, came out with the book "None Dare Call It Treason," which asked: "Is there a conspiratorial plan to destroy the United States into which foreign aid, planned inflation, distortion of treaty-making powers and disarmament all fit?" Stormer's progressive descendants are just as discrediting to the ideas they claim to serve.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112502553.html

    lol....

    liberals don't lose elections....they have them stolen away....

    liberal ideas don't suck...the American people are too stupid to understand them...

    liberal policies aren't incompetent.....some else sabatoges them....

    obama isn't inept.....others are just preventing him from being a great president....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us