“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, June 09, 2012

A blowhard on headwinds

143 comments:

  1. Europe is in Recession. Japan is, according to the month, in Recession, or Flat. Russia, China, and India are slowing rapidly. Brazil is down to basically Flat.

    Feels like More than a Headwind, to me. It almost feels like the "tide" has turned, and we're trying to paddle against both the Wind, And the Current.

    Gee, a "Global" Slowdown; I wonder what could be causing That?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great. Now blogger's linking random words in your post. Shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deuce replies...

      "I could fix it, but I'd rather have you suffer."

      What kind of "pride" does a dude have in his blog, if he won'teven show me how to spruce up my POS-looking post, huh?

      Delete
  3. Meanwhile, California, a state that is doing fairly well recently, received 18% of its electricity from Renewables, yesterday.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is probably about what Germany, another "state" that is doing fairly well, received.

      Delete
    2. You should live in la la land, Rufus:

      If you think CA is doing fairly well, you're either stupid or ignorant.
      Parts of the Great San Juaquin Valley now make Mississippi look like Beverly Hills.

      20 BILLION Debt and counting?

      Big Whoops.

      Delete
  4. Lets look at the ratio of public debt to GDP from the CIA World Factbook 2010; USA - 103%, UK - 86%, Germany - 82%, Spain - 69%, Greece - 165%. Just because the US is currently escaping the worst because it has a reserve currency it is not a paragon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what I said when I looked myself in the mirror this morning.

      Then I told me to get fucked.

      Delete
  5. Well, yeah, Jenny, but you're counting "debt owed to Social Security" as "Public" Debt. Considering as how it is "Statutory," and not "Contractual" it really doesn't even rise to the level of "Liability," much less Debt.

    But, even conceding your point, the whole brouhaha is much more about revenues, and growth (and, Culture,) than it is about debt. Check out Japan's Debt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, just like Obamacare, when we run out the printing press, we'll just tell gramps he's too old anyway.

      Tough shit.

      Liberty, equality, I always say.
      ...at least when I'm wearing my scarf.

      Delete
    2. Contract, What Contract?

      Banks are evil when they do it.

      Obama?

      Not so much in Maxmoron's and RufusWorld.

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Yeah, they haven't grown in 20 years.

      Let's copy them!

      Splendid idea.

      Putz

      Delete
  7. Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc are trapped in "Someone Else's" Currency. Japan, and the U.S. do business in "their own" currency.

    When our import/export ratio gets out of whack we can allow our currencies to "float down," thus improving exports, and choking off some imports. Greece, et al, can't do this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rufus banks on bending the laws of arithmetic.

      Delete
  8. Another problem in Greece is they can't (won't) collect taxes. Shipping is the top industry in Greece, and it's exempt from taxation.

    Well, hell, if you're a small store owner in Greece, and you see that Aristotle Onassis isn't paying taxes, how hard are you going to fight to keep from paying taxes, yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  9. And, of course, the Coup de Grace in Greece is that their two top industries, shipping, and tourism, are the two industries that have been hit the hardest by skyrocketing oil prices.

    They been "triple-tapped."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rufus: Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc are trapped in "Someone Else's" Currency. Japan, and the U.S. do business in "their own" currency.

    Credit is a machine that allows you to borrow future wealth and apply it at a certain point in time. That's why they call it leverage. But it's not found wealth. That's the ancient dream of the perpetual motion machine and it has always been nothing but a pipe dream.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but what Credit does do is it allows you to take currently non-productive (or, virtually, non-productive - such as money sitting in a bank CD) wealth, and create Production.

      The availability of Credit is one of the, if not The most important of, things available to improve living standards of the average man.

      See: Great Depression

      Delete
    2. He's a hopeless Socialist Liar.

      Don't waste your time.

      Delete
  11. Some consumers are more equal than other:

    As interest rates have been dropping to new lows seemingly by the week, American companies have been taking advantage of the cheap borrowing costs, but consumers have been largely left on the sidelines.

    New data this week from the Federal Reserve shows that in the first quarter of this year, American businesses were taking on new debt at the fastest rate since the financial crisis in 2008. American households, though, were heading in the opposite direction, increasingly shedding debt.

    LINK

    The miracle of markets.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That car dealer drove a Volt. If he lived in Texas, and got his electricity from TXU Energy, he could be charging his Volt at night (when they have a Surplus of Wind Power) for Free.

    There's a lesson there. Somewhere. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the new home of the Whopper.

    President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, exactly, which part of that statement qualifies for "Whopperhood?"

      Delete
  14. Tales from the Dark Side: What Happened to Obama?

    The tension between self-government and “good” government has existed since the origins of modern liberalism. Thinkers such as Herbert Croly and Randolph Bourne staked a claim to a priestly wisdom far greater than that possessed by the ordinary mortal. As Croly explained, “any increase in centralized power and responsibility . . . is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy. But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition” and the fact that “the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.”

    [Hence the conservative call for a restricted franchise.]

    It's pretty short. Read the whole thing. One juicy paragraph from the middle:

    The Left’s growing support for a soft authoritarianism is reminiscent of the 1930s, when many on both right and left looked favorably at either Stalin’s Soviet experiment or its fascist and National Socialist rivals. Tom Friedman of the New York Times recently praised Chinese-style authoritarianism for advancing the green agenda. The “reasonably enlightened group” running China, he asserted, was superior to our messy democracy in such things as subsidizing green industry. Steven Rattner, the investment banker and former Obama car czar, dismisses the problems posed by China’s economic and environmental foibles and declares himself “staunchly optimistic” about the future of that country’s Communist Party dictatorship. And it’s not just the gentry liberals identifying China as their model: labor leader Andy Stern, formerly the president of the Service Employees International Union and a close ally of the White House, celebrates Chinese authoritarianism and says that our capitalistic pluralism is headed for “the trash heap of history.” The Chinese, Stern argues, get things done.

    Concluding paragraph:

    A nightmare scenario would be a constitutional crisis pitting a relentless executive power against a disgruntled, alienated opposition lacking strong, intelligent leadership. Over time, the new authoritarians would elicit even more opposition from the “dodos” who make up the majority of Americans residing in the great landmass outside the coastal strips and Chicago. The legacy of the Obama years—once so breathlessly associated with hope and reconciliation—may instead be growing pessimism and polarization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whew. :)

      Old Poker Adage: The First Mistake is the Worst Mistake.

      "As Croly explained, “any increase in centralized power and responsibility . . . is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy."

      And, there you go. A False Statement right out of the chute. TVA was NOT "injurious to certain aspects of traditional American Democracy."

      Nor was The Safe Food and Drug Act. Nor was the Civil Rights Act. Nor was Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Nor was the Securities Exchange Commission, or the FDIC.

      Bottom line: Just another bloviating blowhard enamored of his own voice.

      Gee, Max, you're really picking'em lately. :)

      Delete
    2. We don't need no stinkin' states. Where did that idea come from anyhow?

      Hell it ain't even in the Constitution.

      The fewer the rulers the better off the governed, I sez.

      b

      Delete
    3. We probably don't need many more like Mississippi, and Alabama. If those folks in Kaliforneyeay, and Massatwosteps quit sending us money we're totally boinked.

      Delete
    4. "As Croly explained, “any increase in centralized power and responsibility . . . is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy."

      Rufus you're getting a literal as Quirk. When I read that sentence I heard "institutional balance" between the individual and the collective. It's (mostly) a zero sum game - tighten up the latter and something's got to give, from the former, basically how it works with some slippage and spillage.

      What I thought was interesting was the middle paragraph describing the Left's admiration/awe of the Chinese ability to "get things done." A little authority, a little power, a little direction and voila - Things Getting Done.

      This speaks directly to Quirk's oft-stated concerns about the Obama administration's constitutional encroachments. The Left can be seen as tightening Executive Authority, bypassing Congress, and reformulating Constitutional constraints as a means of "getting things done."

      Ash claims this country is gridlocked for structural reasons (if only we had a parliament.) The New Authoritarians of the Left who admire China might prefer something more ... robust.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, I saw the nod to "certain aspects," but I felt he was "setting the tone," and fairly soon thereafter I lost interest.

      The harbinger-bringers (or, simply, advocates for) of Armageddon bore me to death. I guess I just cain't think that deep. :)

      And, China? Surprise, surprise; the left has a strong authoritarian streak. Again, just makes my eyes glaze over.

      All these guys on the outer edges have one thing in common. They despise, and pity,

      Me.

      Moi.

      Myself.

      And that just irritates the shit out of me.

      Delete
    6. That's why I had to leave wretchard's site - the intensity of the drumbeat for Reset, Revolution, End of Times, and God's Plan. Those were the big three.

      And I get the idea "they're all dicks and they all hate the average american."

      I guess I've been looking for something just a scooch/tad/smidgeon better out of Washington.

      Hell, this country has people like Ash blaming "structural" deficiencies, which is one baby step removed from the Revolution crowd. I doubt he is alone. (In fact, not to speak for him but his views strike me as the poster boy for the "transnational progressive" set.)

      At some point, your (and bob's) disdain for politics and Washington has to give in to something better. Disdain alone won't get us to a better place.

      Neither with wretchard's motley crew of revolutionaries.

      Delete
    7. I know one thing: I'd like to see government insert a little Authority back into financial regulation.

      Some industries are meant to be heavily regulated, finance being one of them. (Health care is the other one - either regulate the life out of it or let the government provide it.)

      If someone or some group of someones could beef up specific portions of the regulatory code, including tax reform, I honestly don't care about any of the rest of it. None. Not God's Plan or Afghanistan or Leni R. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

      Delete
    8. I vote every election, Max. And, I advocate for my ideas every day on the internet. I don't disdain All politics, nor, even, All politicians. I do not, however, have time for faux-intellectuals that pontificate on the "Broad Span of Future Revolution, and Culture." Most of them are full o' beans.

      I supported the Republicans when they pushed for Missile Defense, Free Trade Agreements, and both Gulf wars (one of which, I admit, might have been ill-advised.)

      I support the Dems, today, in the quest for more Renewable Energy, and Universal Healthcare.

      On Regulatory issues I tend to come down on the Dem side inasmuch as I believe the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake, and Dodd-Frank, although imperfect, is a necessary first step.

      In matters of Spending/Taxing I'm pretty much a Simpson/Bowles-type guy. Cut spending "Across the Board" by 5%, or so, and go back to Bill Clinton's Tax Regime.

      Delete
    9. faux-intellectuals that pontificate on the "Broad Span of Future Revolution, and Culture." Most of them are full o' beans.

      Including the ones who think this country can survive with no government!!

      The Libertarians have taken the Republican Party to a bad place.

      At least the Democrats still have their policy guys.

      Which puts them ahead.

      Delete
    10. Libertarianism makes a lot of sense to certain precocious 7th Graders.

      When grown, human-persons identify themselves as "libertarian" it's always startling.

      I can't resist the urge to smile, though. :)

      Delete
    11. I support the Dems, today, in the quest for more Renewable Energy, and Universal Healthcare.

      The Republican Party bows to its Libertarian base: it is not the responsibility of the state to (1) promote Industrial Policy or (2) provide health care.

      Can't count the number of times I have read that sentence.

      Which implies that some pol somewhere needs to dig a little deeper into the "intellectual" weeds to find a foundation that will move the Republicans into the modern world with attendant modern challenges.

      And that some pol somewhere needs to dig a little deeper into the "intellectual" weeds to find a fix for the process that is corrupting some not so bad policy.

      God's Plan and Free Markets are not adequate.

      And Big Pharma needs an Intervention (with or without god.)

      Delete
    12. Yep, I'm grouchy.

      The latest "private sector is fine" hissy fit set me off.

      Wretchard's crew is preparing the Strychnine.

      The sooner the Tea Party set is muzzled, the better.

      Maybe the debates will be more productive.

      Real wood podiums instead of neon plastic.

      Delete
    13. It's only partly the "tea partiers," Max. The Republicans tend to love what Wall St. loves, and Wall St loves the Big Public Companies - eg. Exxon, Chevron, Arch Coal, Anadarko, Halliburton, et al.

      Take away GE, of whose business Wind Turbines is an itty-bitty, miniscule part, and the Renewable Companies, most especially the ethanol companies, are small, and lightly-traded, if "public" at all.

      It's hard to pull for ethanol when a large part of your income is from selling Exxon stock.

      Delete
    14. We're too far out from the election for such a faux-pas to retain any traction. It's common sense that he was referring to the Corporations. It won't move the needle.

      It'll all break down, I believe, in who manages to take control of the debates. Keep one thing in mind, "horses don't bet on people."

      Delete
    15. Oh I understand that Rufus - it's a Trump combover.

      What's started to make my gut constrict is the reaction of the Mensa crew.

      And I'm not falling for the superficial stuff. There's experience, education, memory, and historical context. Quite a handful of qualities to admire.

      And then turn on a dime.

      You haul out the Geiger counter and start looking for a spaceship.

      My thinking is that I am still absorbing the "Open Mike" society of the digital age. It was always thus and so - but now a thousand mikes are hot.

      "horses don't bet on people."

      That's because people don't stay on the tracks. They wander.

      Delete
    16. Yes, and they'll wander off in the damnedest directions. :)

      Delete
    17. Oh you have no idea.

      The connection between the New Authoritarians essay, the Health care deals (Big Pharma), the policy vs process conflict, the "private sector is fine" issue, and the Republicans unfortunate embrace of Libertarianism is that (I think) some kind of move towards a stronger Executive is likely required to break the bonds of crony capitalism, bonds that corrupt process at the expense of policy, bonds that "grease the wheels" for the emergence of political extremism, bonds that compromise business competitiveness either directly or indirectly, bonds that encourage transnational progressives to hope for the demise of a dominant USA as institutions, ideals, and vitality decay from a paragon into an obsolete paradigm.

      It's simple systems stuff. One component has to exert some muscle to untie the knot. Then roll it back, which, contrary to criticism, can and has been done many times in our past.

      Delete
    18. Nah, Max, we don't need a dictator. Probly we just need a brief respite. A li'l nap, if you will. Perchance, to dream.

      Delete
    19. I li'l slice, or two, of Ruf's Roast Pork, and a short walk down by the lake.

      Maybe a drive over to the spillway to catch a couple o' crappie.

      Them boys over at BC got you all het up. Ain't none of that stuff going to happen. Everone's jist goin' to bitch a lot, and then go vote. Same as always. :)

      Delete
    20. And I'm a little bit surprised at you Rufus.

      The health care issue, almost as a single piece of legislation, opened up the Pandora's box of debate over the "intellectual" foundations of our government and what it should and should not do.

      Missile defense and free trade don't generate such debates. (Neither do they generate critiques of "structural obsolescence.")

      If one supports universal healthcare coverage, then one needs to engage in the proper "process" of getting there.

      To some extent, the country has never escaped Process debates, but not so much in the post WWII period. Now it is coming back with issues that require the public to make decisions over both policy and process.

      Hard to walk around the need for some consideration of the abstract.

      Delete
    21. That they do.

      (Too many unacknowledged internal conflicts: need to educate average Americans that the Left is smug and condescending but we have the "right" solutions, and if you don't believe us then we're gonna restrict your franchise!!)

      Delete
    22. Naw, Max, we don't have to "talk it to death;" we just have to "do it." The President, a majority in the house, and 60 Senators passed the bill. Now, Supreme Ct. willing, we'll "just do it." Parts of it will be bolloxed up, and we'll fix those as we go along.

      Setting up healthcare plans isn't rocket science. I used to do it. :)

      You know what the great thing about the United States is, Max? Like most place on earth, half the people are pissed off all the time; but in the U.S. it's not always the "same" half.

      Politics-wise, everyone gets their "day in the bucket," here.

      Delete
    23. As for the "mandate:" I figured out a long time ago that if the government could mandate tha I paid taxes, paid social security, bought medicare, wore seatbelts, and go get my ass shot off in Veeyetnam, they could mandate most anything.

      Delete
    24. .

      The President, a majority of the House, [due to reconciliation, the 'deem and pass' rule, 'the Louisiana purchase', the 'cornhusker kickbacks', Dodd's $100 million hospital in Ct., payoffs to Stupak, Gordon, Kapton, et. al., sell-outs and waivers to big business, big pharma, the SEIU, promises made but later broken to religious groups and the 12 pro-life Democrats, and one could go on] and 60 Senators passed the bill.

      You would have to laugh at some of it if it didn't make you want to cry.

      For instance, all it took to get Dennis Kucinich to change his vote from 'nay' to 'yay' was a ride on Air Force one. There you have the definition of a cheap fuck.

      .

      Delete
    25. .

      It's simple systems stuff. One component has to exert some muscle to untie the knot. Then roll it back, which, contrary to criticism, can and has been done many times in our past.

      It's simple system stuff? Sounds a bit technocratic to me. Roll it back as has been done many times in our past? A few examples would be nice. It's hard to debate generalities without some specifics to frame the argument.

      .



      .

      Delete
    26. Lincoln's suspension of Habeas corpus.

      Delete
    27. .

      Clause 2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


      Lincoln used the Suspension Clause as his justification for suspending habeas corpus; however, it's interesting to note that when challenges to his actions were making their way to the Supreme Court, he like so many other presidents since, reversed himself and released the prisoners until Congress could pass authorizing legislation. Presidents will act like dicks until someone pushes for the checks and balances written into the Constitution.

      Arguing over policy versus process is easy in a salon setting but not quite so easy in real-world America, supposedly a nation of laws. We are not talking about the return policy at Walmarts and the process you go through with it. We are talking about a process defined by law and incorporated in the constitution. Sure there are checks and balances that make it hard to get things done but that's better than the 'efficiency' of China and everything that goes with it.

      The cry of we need a strong leader, executive, president, tyrant, king, has echoed through the centuries whenever things got tough, or weren't moving fast enough, or more specifically weren't moving fast enough in the direction some wanted them to. The elitists and intellectuals like Friedman can always rationalize some justification for the consolidation of power.

      It amuses me to see the clowns who rant and rave about their 2nd Amendment rights and how they have to be protected but are then perfectly willing to give up the rest of their rights. What the hell do you need gun rights for if you have nothing left to protect with them?

      .

      Delete
    28. True. I was also thinking in terms of Kagan's essay - somewhere here - that USA must remain "strong" to ensure a future consistent with democratic values. The transnational progressives seem to view our "bumbling" ways as a sign that the institutions and ideals of our founding documents are "obsolete" or "inadequate" in some sense to modern challenges.

      And, in some sense they may be correct. (In some sense, not.) So I would suggest that - perhaps? - we can kick it into a higher gear?

      Delete
    29. I recall reading an essay awhile back about "war time executive powers" that were reversed with peace. The only one I remember is Lincoln's deal.

      But I will note thus: The subject came back to life with the escalation of Islamic-inspired terrorism under GWB who implemented more questionable executive empowerment acts than BHO could ever imagine:

      But a more significant piece of legislation has largely remained under the radar. Seven days after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed Public Law 107-40. This joint resolution, commonly referred to as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF), gave Mr. Bush “specific statutory authorization” to:

      … [U]se all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

      This was the infamous “blank check” that Congress wrote to the executive branch, giving Mr. Bush virtually unreviewable, dictatorial powers to carry out his war on terrorism.

      LINK

      Whatever the resolution, the subject is not ideological.

      Delete
    30. .

      This was the infamous “blank check” that Congress wrote to the executive branch, giving Mr. Bush virtually unreviewable, dictatorial powers to carry out his war on terrorism.

      This was the infamous "blank check" whose powers 10 years later Obama said he needed and got, extension of the "Patriot Act" and the other acts passed in response to 9/11. What powers did Bush have that Obama hasn't asked for or been given? Then add in the NDAA and
      Holder's DOJ memo that states 'due process' is pretty much anything the administration says it. As a matter of fact, 'everything' is pretty much defined as the president says it is. The Taliban were terrorist until they weren't. Hamas was a terrorist organization until it wasn't.

      Bush passed more than Obama could dream of? Lordy, we better hope Obama never gets a good night's sleep.

      Everything you rant about (with good reason) concerning the GOP and GWB, Obama has taken, continued, and expanded upon.

      Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

      .

      Delete
    31. I smell it all right Q. Just establishing the time line. I have never made excuses for Obama or the Democrats. Quite the opposite vis a vis the federal response to terrorism. I only note that the Obama team is more coordinated. Not a small thing.

      Delete
    32. Examples of war time curtailment of civil liberties & institutional response

      -Alien and Sedition Acts (179-1802 (repealed), War with France)

      -Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Civil War

      -Woodrow Wilson, WWI - multiple repressions leading to "clear and present danger" test and ACLU

      -FDR in WWII: Reenacted WWI Espionage Act & Smith Alien Registration Act - both overturned

      -Japanese internment WWII, partially reversed

      -Vietnam War - Supreme Court defined war time freedom of speech (Brandenburg v Ohio); Court also struck down Nixon & Pentagon Papers

      -Reagan & Bush - Vietnam experience led to tighter control of military information.

      LINK

      Rant away.

      Delete
    33. Another (more readable) summary here:

      Some of America's most respected legal thinkers, while saying that the government went too far in World War II, say that some erosion of freedom in wartime is necessary.

      "There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson or Roosevelt, or that future justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently from their predecessors," William Rehnquist, chief justice of the United States, wrote in a book published in 1998.

      "It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime," Rehnquist wrote in All the Laws But One.

      The real danger with the present situation is that the "war on terror" has no defined end point, so the swing-back during peace time becomes as chimeric as the combatants.

      Delete
    34. .

      Rant away.

      And so I will.

      This is what drives me (and evidently some others) crazy about your posts here. You are constantly bringing up context yet you seem to ignore it on a constant basis. We have argued about this before wrt you talking about three or four separate issues in the same post.

      But this is worse.

      We start out discussing a whole range of issues related to the role of president as chief executive which you seem to indicate require a strong executive to solve. Yet, when I ask for example related to some of these, you skip to the WOT and the president's role as commander-in-chief and never leave it.

      This is the complete text of the post I was responding to.

      Max (short for Maxine)Sat Jun 09, 01:51:00 PM EDT

      Oh you have no idea.

      The connection between the New Authoritarians essay, the Health care deals (Big Pharma), the policy vs process conflict, the "private sector is fine" issue, and the Republicans unfortunate embrace of Libertarianism is that (I think) some kind of move towards a stronger Executive is likely required to break the bonds of crony capitalism, bonds that corrupt process at the expense of policy, bonds that "grease the wheels" for the emergence of political extremism, bonds that compromise business competitiveness either directly or indirectly, bonds that encourage transnational progressives to hope for the demise of a dominant USA as institutions, ideals, and vitality decay from a paragon into an obsolete paradigm.
      It's simple systems stuff. One component has to exert some muscle to untie the knot. Then roll it back, which, contrary to criticism, can and has been done many times in our past.


      This was downstream but related to the link you put up regarding the left’s push towards ‘soft authoritarianism’ .

      (Continued below...)

      .

      Delete
    35. .

      (Continued...)

      I submit that a normal person would, within the 'context' of your post and the others it was related too, assume:

      1. The sentence, “ One component has to exert some muscle to untie the knot” is related to issues like the ‘New Authoritarians’ essay, the health care deals, the policy vs process conflict, ‘the private sector is fine’ issue and the Republican “embrace” of Libertariansm; yet, when I ask for some of the “many” examples you cite, you offer me Lincoln’s repeal of habeas corpus, a subject not even mentioned in the previous paragraph.

      2. From the comment: “(I think) some kind of move towards a stronger Executive is likely required to break the bonds of crony capitalism, …(etc.)” one can only assume you approve the move towards a more robust executive.

      3. And that you contend the stronger executive can “…break the bonds of crony capitalism, bonds that corrupt process at the expense of policy, bonds that "grease the wheels" for the emergence of political extremism, bonds that compromise business competitiveness either directly or indirectly, bonds that encourage transnational progressives to hope for the demise of a dominant USA as institutions, ideals, and vitality decay from a paragon into an obsolete paradigm.”

      4. From the totality of your post, I assumed you were talking about long term societal issues and that a relatively brief move towards authoritarianism would be reversed over some period of time; yet the examples you give, ignore the issues listed in your initial post and instead concentrate on “Examples of war time curtailment of civil liberties & institutional response”, examples that either reflect the proper use of constitutional powers or which are in most cases reversed within a short time frame using the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution, if nothing else, proving the illegality of some of the moves the ‘stronger’ executive has pushed through.

      Now if you want to argue the prerogatives the President can or should assume under his role as commander-in-chief, we can do that. If you want to argue we need a stronger executive to cut through the current political drag on a whole range of issues, we can argue that. However, to argue either of these points, we have to define what a ‘stronger executive’ means to you. Does it mean using the bully pulpit and soft-power on the one extreme or does it go all the way up to gutting the constitution on the other? And when you say “then roll it back” we have to ask, roll it back over what time frame and roll it back using what mechanism. Do we just accept the presidents word when he says, “Trust me”?

      You accuse me of being too literal. Good heavens, we are offering opinions here not symbolism or monomyths.

      .

      Delete
    36. .

      On the issue of context, which you constantly suggest many of us 'just don't get', I would only suggest you consider that part of that might be your fault.

      Examples.

      1. One of the hardest things to get across in a blog setting is irony, sarcasm, etc. since the written word lacks the facial and tonal qualities that ordinarily facilitate this expresssion. I struggle with it all the time since about half of what I say is meant sarcastically. Everyone would applaud the person who comes up with a sarcasm font. Some have taken to notes like [sarcasm font off]. With articles from The Onion we assume it is all sarcasm. Familiarity with MSM writers gives us an idea where they are coming from so it is easier to detect sarcasm or irony. However, you are relatively new here so you will have to forgive us if we sometimes miss your sarcasm.

      2. You have a tendancy to assume we understand what you are saying or what it means, for instance, the term 'reset'. You started using it some time ago but never really defined it. From the numerous times you have used it I get the impression that it either applies to actions that will occur after an apolyptic event or series of events or some kind of revolution resulting from worsening events; however, I am still uncertain which, if either, of these is the true meaning of reset as you use it. Another is references to 'Crazy G-y' which I suspect many of us just don't get since we don't visit the BC.

      3. On many subjects, as a result of your writing style (or perhaps just because of my ignorance) it is very difficult to tell what exactly is your position on that issue.

      But then again, perhaps I am just being too literal.

      .

      Delete
    37. You accuse me of being too literal.

      No "may" about it. RE your No. 4 above, yes, I started with a general thesis (relating to a suite of difficult issues) and then used a specific application (war time needs) to suggest the advisability of a short-term increase in executive authority.

      Is it so truly difficult for you to extrapolate the meaning of "war" to some of the current "peace time" issues that gridlock Congress? I assume the answer is Yes. can you honestly say you have not read one media account that didn't use the metaphor of war to described the debt ceiling extension?

      Enough. You sound foolish and petulant.

      My salient point was that the historical encroachments (yes they occurred during war) were pulled back when peace was restored. It was a Process argument and I used one Process (war) to make it.

      This is absurd. I actually thought you would engage and you dive into the trivial. Do me a favor and stay down there.

      Good heavens, we are offering opinions here not symbolism or monomyths.

      I'm not. I'm not so sure about you "Teach." You seem o enjoy cloaking yourself in the pendantic. Suit up BatMan.

      This is what drives me (and evidently some others) crazy about your posts here.

      1. Scroll Baby Scroll. The world doesn't revolve around you. Or me.

      2. Doug has mental problems, apparently related to me, and his emotional interaction with other people is confined to a rather limited range of loathing and contempt expressions. I apparently bring out his inner Hunter Thompson.

      3. I would be interested in a vote. Make it on the substance of the sentence above.

      4. Pick your own context and fuck the fuck off. Literally.

      ................................................

      Footnote for reference. I do not believe temporary encroachment by the Executive is a good idea - primary reason being there are a number of other things that can be done first, all of which will take a while given our system.

      Delete
    38. .

      That's fine with me.

      Your last sentence makes my point perfectly given that you have said the exact opposite above. But why get into that further?

      Battling to understand what you are trying to say is difficult enough. Trying to reason with you over something as simple as context and the English language is trying. Trying to mull the strange workings of that mind are impossible. I have no problem ignoring your posts. Of course, that is assuming you leave me out of them unlike the many you reference from the BC who have no recourse in defending thmeselves here.

      .

      Delete
    39. I'm not Moses.

      You're not Socrates.

      RE your neck-wrenching segue into a different context/subject, I have referenced general tenor/tone without naming anyone specifically, even though you have the dubious distinction of being one of two people who asked for names.

      You're fine. I'm fine. The private sector is fine. We're all fine.

      Delete
  15. Look folks, it's simple. Our private sector is doing ok, in fact, it's doing fine. We've created over 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this last year alone. Right now it's our local governments that are hurting. State and local governments have continued to pare jobs driving up the unemployment numbers in a way that is deceptive. Over all, we're doing great. We need to aid these government sectors, is all. Manufacturing is fine too. We haven't been driving whole industries out of the country as we used to do. We're not building any Government Motors cars in China for instance, but in Detroit, which is within a day or two of bankruptcy. We need to throw a few billion over Quirk's way is all. Really, things are great. Why the white working class doesn't see things that way and continues to hemorrhage away from B-HO is beyond me. They just don't know enough other than to keep hanging on to their guns and religions I guess.

    b





    "The truth of the matter is that … we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone," he said in response to a question. "The private sector is doing fine.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AND, I forgot to mention another of our many new industries that are 'taking off', and not by going overseas, either. Drones! Folks, you wouldn't believe how many drones we are building, and right here in Mexico too. We're gonna get this deal so we have so many drones flying around you won't be able to take a crap in your own back yard without the EPA being up your asshole before your toilet paper is.

    What's not to like?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  17. Go get 'im, Mittens!

    Mitt Rominey: "I think he’s defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people. Has there ever been an American president who is so far from reality as to believe in an America where 23 million Americans are out of work, or stopped looking for work, or can only find part-time jobs and need full-time jobs, where the economy grew in the first quarter of the year at only 1.9 percent, where the median income in America has dropped by 10 percent over the last four years, where there have been record number of home foreclosures, for the president of the United States to stand up and say the private sector is doing fine is going to go down in history."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rufus: If he lived in Texas, and got his electricity from TXU Energy, he could be charging his Volt at night (when they have a Surplus of Wind Power) for Free.

    Yeah, windmills and the maintenance that goes with them are free. They grow on trees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea of free stuff.

      That's why I'm voting for Obama.

      Everything will be free.

      b

      Delete
    2. Go hug a coalmine, sweetie. At least that wind will be blowin' in twenty, or thirty years.

      Delete
    3. And, we won't have to work to get it, either.

      What's not to like about this?

      Free energy, free medical, free condoms.

      Have you ever really thought about it?

      I urge you to do so.

      Everything free
      And no workee

      Has a ring to it.

      Go Obama!

      b

      Delete
    4. But, that's been pretty typical of you over the years, T. I make a factual statement, and you follow up with a snarky non sequitor.

      Delete
    5. What do you expect from someone who proudly handles as a Nordic bitch propagandist for the Nazi Tell You What You Should Think Department?

      Lilith Lustful sounded so much better.

      b

      Delete
    6. :) That's interesting. I didn't even google to see who Leni whassername was.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, we knew Nuke energy would be free way back in the fifties.

      Took til 2008 with the election of The One for us to be elightened about wind.

      Delete
  19. Wood closes "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" [1992] with this, "No doubt the cost that America paid for this democracy was high--with its vulgarity, its materialism, its rootlessness, its anti-intellectualism. But there is no denying the wonder of it and the real earthly benefits it brought to the hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people. The American Revolution created this democracy, and we are living with its consequences still" (p. 269).

    The price of democracy:

    Vulgarity
    Materialism (Consumption)
    Rootlessness (Social Stability/Cohesion)
    Anti-Intellectualism (The Fun Subject)

    The Wood book is two decades old but it ties in with the New Authoritarianism theme.

    Couple of points, loosely articulated and loosely connected to drive just the right amount of loosely developed angst into the rhetorical headwinds:

    1. Maria Bartiromo, CNBC, ate Peter Orszag for lunch the other day. It was a most interesting interview and I saw hints of this in his 5000-word health care essay. The policy analysts are being pistol whipped by the gun-slinging ideologues in a fairly well defined battle of policy vs process (ref some of Quirk's writing but I have also raised the subject.) There's quite a bit more to be said on this but I'll leave it there for now.

    2. Each side - left and right - is dealing with the price of democracy concepts briefly laid out by Wood - and trying to move "upgrade" their respective thematic set. The Left is toying with the New Authoritarianism (ref Quirk's writing). The Right is revving up the Libertarian engine.

    While the "do-do's" (Left), er we call them "average Americans" (Right) despair at the loss of middle ground which Bill Clinton captured, to his everlasting credit and genius, only to have it split apart by GWB and Obama.

    Which one gets this country back to the middle (despised ideological territory among more than a handful of political operatives/analysts - the 'with us or agin us' theme being a current that runs strong and sure through the American polity.)

    But it seems to be what the "do-do's" want. First one to figure that out gets the prize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't happen as long as people are grouchy; and the folks will be grouchy as long as we're in this "in and out of recession" economy. And, we'll be in that type economy until we adapt to Peak Oil.

      Delete
    2. I got the grouchy part down.

      Obama says the "private sector is doing fine" which it is (profits, cash) and all hell breaks loose.

      The Dems are going to win on default issues that are joined at the hip with "grouchiness". They know this.

      The Republicans have to proactively speak to those issues, from the Republican platform of free markets and ... what else? ... more free markets! That won't work (in this environment as you have noted before). They don't know that yet.

      And they're having a devil of a time "educating" the average "grouchy" American.

      I'd laugh but it hurts when I'm grouchy.

      Delete
    3. All you have to do is watch some commercial television and you realize that we are in no danger of an intellectual revolution. We are in no danger of anything intellectual. Thought is out. Call any corporation and after you get “ press two for Spanish”…”This call may be recorded for training purposes”…”I am sorry you feel that way” …”Have I given you excellent service?”…”Have a nice day.” You will have spent 25 minutes where you may have done as well talking to a machine or watching another reality show.

      Visit any restaurant and observe a family with children and inevitably one of them will be texting. No intellectual thoughtful discussion there. Someone mentions diversity and multiculturalism and progressives swoon.

      Christopher Hitchens, he closest thing to a celebrity intellectual, that took no prisoner and suffered no fools and politicians from either side died of throat cancer. Damn shame that.

      Delete
    4. We are in no danger of anything intellectual.

      Somewhere around here I brought up Gordon Wood's concluding statement about the price of democracy in America, one of which was anti-intellectualism, which I would posit is sufficient to explain the "exceptionalism" that offered no firm berth for the Marxist/socialist revolution. Too wordy. (And too French probably.)

      To some extent the fantastic and horrific failure of the collective ideologies left a stain on intellectualism that has yet to recover. The Republican embrace of Libertarianism is no help because it appeals to the "government is the problem" crowd which of course is true.

      I had to laugh at the "private sector is just fine" rebukes. In a very fundamental way Obama was agreeing with the capitalists - the markets work! Howl and scream. One might have thought that the right-wing pols would have spun that in a much different way but the two sides are too busy stumbling over each other trying to become the Modern Populist.

      Michael Tomasky is faulting Obama for his campaign team. He might be correct. Obama needs to pivot like Clinton did and he *will* clinch the deal, but he sure is taking his sweet time. In the meantime we're going to learn an awful lot about Mitt's chakras and secret words.





      My two cents which is probably enough to piss off everyone.

      Delete
    5. The other thing about suffering no fools, all well and good, in the proper context, and amounts.

      I recall a young Hitchens going chin-to-chin with Bill Buckley who presented himself in a manner that either annoyed or intimidated the shit out of you, but one thing about him was his courteous manner, mouthy - er, erudite - but in bounds. Hitchens was just about always a rude and arrogant little prick - Bill Maher with a much bigger brain. I would say he carefully skirted the boundaries during his Buckley interview. I would also say that he was maturing as a person just about the time his cancer went full throttle so we will never know where his growth arc would have taken him.

      Delete
  20. Rufus: But, that's been pretty typical of you over the years, T. I make a factual statement, and you follow up with a snarky non sequitor.

    Factual statement. Free energy.

    TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

    Sunlight is free too, but you can't cash it in unless you invest a hunnert dollars per square foot first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stated that the Energy would be "Free to Him." What part of that sentence strained your comprehension?

      Delete
  21. Bobbo: What do you expect from someone who proudly handles as a Nordic bitch propagandist for the Nazi Tell You What You Should Think Department?

    The subject matter of that one documentary might have been questionable, but historians rank Frau Riefenstahl with Orson Wells and John Ford as a master of mise en scène.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The broad admitted that every time she turned the page of Mein Kampf she had another orgasm, and just knew that anyone that could write such a book was destined to lead her nation.

      She was a fucking nazi through, and through.

      Delete
    2. Well, coming back to the EB I knew Bobbo and WiO were gonna call me a Nazi bitch anyway, because I don't have an orgasm every time Netanyahu opines, so I figured I might as well embrace the term for self-empowerment, much like Queer Nation and Niggaz With Attitude (NWA) did.

      Delete
    3. Still, while I might be intrigued by the spunk, the term "self-inflicted" injury comes, all too readily, to mind.

      Delete
  22. Photograph a bunch of nazis strutting around, and candlelight parades, isn't art. It's pornography.
    .....

    OT, hey look at this. When looking up the term 'larceny' for another purpose--

    lar·ce·ny
       [lahr-suh-nee] Show IPA
    noun, plural lar·ce·nies. Law .
    the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use.
    Compare grand larceny, petty larceny.

    Origin:
    1425–75; late Middle English < Anglo-French larcin theft (< Latin latrōcinium robbery, equivalent to latrōcin ( ārī ) to rob, orig. serve as mercenary soldier (derivative of latrō hired soldier, robber) + -ium -ium) + -y3


    " equivalent to latrōcin ( ārī ) to rob, orig. serve as mercenary soldier (derivative of latrō hired soldier"

    The language again gives us away. That's what war mostly was in the old days. Kill and run off with the goods.

    This is no stab at any Vets or anything, just an interesting origin of the word.

    My Dad always used to say "Well, there's a little larceny in everybody". Was one of his favorite words in criminal law. The term came up in a conversation with a guy yesterday.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  23. Towards the end of the war, and after, when things were looking grim for the kill everyone but us crowd, Leni didn't go werewolf, or head to the Alpine Redoubt Impregnable, she went to Hollywood.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  24. “He’s 65 years old,” said an unnamed adviser, as though that explains everything. Sixty-five is hardly teetering on the brink of senility, though people of a certain age do have a charming, devil-may-care way of saying what they really think and letting the chips fall.

    Dumb fucking youthful 'advisor' don't know shit.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-nobody-likes-a-loser/2012/06/08/gJQAPOtiOV_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

    It's Belmont Time. Got to Run Run Run.

    1-3-9!

    bye-bye

    b

    ReplyDelete
  25. What's at Stake if the Washington "Dick" Problem isn't Contained?

    Business as Usual?

    This is the world America made when it assumed global leadership after World War II. Would this world order survive if America declined as a great power? Some American intellectuals insist that a "Post-American" world need not look very different from the American world and that all we need to do is "manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other powers, the world order will inevitably change to suit their interests and preferences.

    .....

    Many people view the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior, and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government -- forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. But there was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II.

    International order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others -- in America's case, the domination of liberal free market principles of economics, democratic principles of politics, and a peaceful international system that supports these, over other visions that other nations and peoples may have. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

    Robert Kagan (Mar 2012)

    The private sector is doing just fine. It's the public sector that needs work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The White House cut a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to get health-care reform passed, a revelation getting renewed attention thanks to emails released by House Republicans, reports the New York Times. In one from 2009, Obama adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle tells a top industry lobbyist that the administration has agreed to block the importation of inexpensive drugs into the US, "based on how constructive you guys have been." In exchange, the big drug companies agreed to support the president's overall reform. Republicans call it a back-room deal that proves President Obama is a hyprocrite, Democrats say Republicans are the hypocrites given their ties to the industry, and the White House says it had to work with all players to get something passed.

    Policy getting eaten alive by process. I could see it on Orszag's face when Maria "The Voice" Bartiromo went into high gear. (No slouch that gal. She's good.**)



    (**Random Gossip: I recall her interview with Barry Diller years ago, probably ten. Germaine Greer on steroids. Turned him into a warm pool of jello. She does have beautiful eyes.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Replies
    1. All right. That was funny. Good mise en scene.

      Delete
  28. Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, said it is urgent that European leaders take direct stakes in banks, and in the longer term they need to complement monetary union with financial union. Unified bank supervision, a bank resolution authority and a single deposit insurance fund are the critical steps needed, she said.

    Moves toward deeper fiscal integration should go hand-in-hand with these steps, Lagarde said in a speech prepared for delivery before a Leaders Dialogue in New York.

    "Let me be clear: the heart of European bank repair lies in Europe. That means more Europe, not less," she said.

    LINK

    EUrope needs its own reality show.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rufus: Shipping is the top industry in Greece, and it's exempt from taxation.

    Porsche SE has found a way to sell the remaining 50.1 percent of its sports car unit to Volkswagen without paying an estimated 1.5 billion euros ($1.9 billion) in tax.

    In other news today, a Greek far-right politician who slapped a woman in the face and threw water in the face of another during a live TV election debate threatened to sue his victims on Saturday, after accusing them of provoking the attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stand corrected. Reality show in progress.

      Delete
    2. We should try that with Max and Rufus.

      Delete
    3. If I could do this

      I'd make you all address me as GOD.

      Delete
    4. Men and women stroll on by as if nothing has/is happening.

      Delete
    5. Most the older folks don't seem to fear getting punched out while trying to calm things down.
      Main actor is smiling as he points and tells them about the security camera.

      Delete
  30. Anonymous: Everything free
    And no workee


    Like, oh my god! so she, like, came to the mall and, like, hugged me and, like, got the credit card out and, like, used it to, like, buy the shoes,but the card was, like, maxed out, and I was, like, soooooo embarrassed! and, like, i was standing there, like, crying like a baby, like, you know, like, like... you know, like, like, like, like, like... like... like... like...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you had a lick of compassion, you'd show her how to rip off Grandma's Social Security.

      Delete
    2. You can, like, ask Max and Ruf for tips on how to best do it.

      Delete
  31. Coffee only starting to hit:

    Does this make sense?

    "In its base-case projections, it said the fiscal deficit, as a share of gross domestic product, will decline from 10 percent in 2011 to five percent by 2016.

    Even at that level, the deficit-GDP ratio "would still be at the high end of the ranges we use to assess sovereigns' fiscal performance."

    Meanwhile it said government debt would rise, from 77 percent of GDP in 2011 to 83 percent this year and 87 percent by 2016.

    "Moreover, absent significant fiscal policy change, we expect US net general government indebtedness, as a share of the economy, to continue to increase after 2016."
    "

    ReplyDelete
  32. Move right along, nothing to see here.

    "It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time," the memo states.

    For proof, the memo highlights Obama's denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times's stories.

    "If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process 'to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'" the memo states. "One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying 'three dozen' of the President’s 'current and former advisers' were interview sources for the story."

    The memo cites another example that would seem to contradict the president's statement: "A second story, about cyberattacks on Iran nuclear facilities, citied discussions with 'officials involved in the program,' and went on to say that program 'remains highly classified.'"


    ---

    Time for Ruf and Max to consult on a coverup story.

    ...or just boldly assert as they so often do that it ain't no big deal.

    Showing their usual concern for our troops that will pay for Obama's perfidy with their blood.

    After all, it IS Obama.

    nuf said

    ReplyDelete
  33. That wasn't fair:

    Most likely they would have just ignored the story.

    Like the MSM.

    Sorry, guys, my bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Get with the program, Doug.

      If you want Ruf to take notice, you have to throw in at least a line or two about 'Peak Oil'; otherwise, it's all just a bunch of bloviating.

      :)

      .

      Delete
    2. Don't forget:

      Natural Gas will be unaffordable any day now.

      ...all the rigs packing up for the evil fracking.

      So evil that they will just vent off massive quantitie of Gas byproducts to intentionally pollute our mother.

      Delete
  34. Forty years after Watergate, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward assess the man their reporting forced from office, and the headline in the Washington Post sums it up: Richard Nixon, it declares, "was far worse than we thought." Forget the popular notion that the burglary itself was a minor thing and that the coverup actually brought down Nixon. That lets him off too easy, they write, and "minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon's criminal actions."

    As the Nixon tapes now make clear, the burglary was part of a pattern: Nixon had "a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency." He thought nothing of ordering his minions to steal, blackmail, and plants bugs to get an edge. It wasn't just Democrats; he went after anti-war protesters, the media, the justice system, and "history itself" in much the same way. "At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law."

    LINK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      ...Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law."


      Deja vu all over again.


      .

      Delete
    2. Max (short for Maxine)Sat Jun 09, 08:10:00 PM EDT

      Don't take it over the top. Just thinking out loud. And yes, there are parallels, which explains the post.

      But not Doug. I have some ideas, but I am not sure what explains that depth of virulence. I thought it was only the Grim and Determined Socialists that hated with such ... enthusiasm.

      Delete
    3. But payment for services rendered is in the front of my mind.

      It is a campaign season.

      And a close one.

      The Players have made their bets.

      And they don't like losing.

      Delete
  35. No, because you don't give a damn about what happens to our warriors or our country if the Sainted Shithead in the Whitehouse caused it.

    He can do no wrong according to you, Rufus, and the MSM.

    Truly shameful.

    NIXON!

    Fuck you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (For Quirk)

      Don't tell anybody, but I'm just incitn.

      Nothing better to do at my age.

      Delete
    2. .

      Don't worry, you'll have plenty of opportunities.

      I expect you and I will be at each others throats again after the election.

      ;)

      .

      Delete
  36. Dianne Feinstein:

    Lifetime Lib.

    Ten times better than you and Ruf at your "best."

    Actually seems to care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might not want to tell that to the farmers in El Centro, ca.

      Delete
  37. “The Constitution. . . illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law--all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity.”― Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present

    That's how a professional does it.

    Famous Quotes about the Constitution

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
      ― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America


      "I'm proud to say I was a member of the Idaho Militia from 18 to 50, or was it 55. Part of the time I didn't know I was in the militia, because I had forgotten. It was so well regulated, sort of automatically regulated, we didn't even ever need to have a meeting, much less a drill. We didn't need to, that's the folk we are, well and self regulated. Yet it's right there in our state constitution. Don't fuck with us, is all I can tell you, or the folks in Montana. You don't know what you would be up against." -- b, A Farmer's History of the US Constitution and Idaho Constitution From Statehood to the Present Compared, with concluding notes on the Idaho Militia


      b

      Delete
    2. Zinn's is a people' history - meaning it's another propaganda sheet, it's intellectual content nearing zero. Zinn, a decent guy, used all the old leftie socialist ideas to the fullest extent. Zinn was nearly up there with Chomsky in the blinders capacity.



      That's how a professional does it.


      It's how a man with an agenda does it, not a professional.

      b

      Delete
    3. .

      Speak kindly of the dead, Bobbo.

      .

      Delete
    4. It's how a man with an agenda does it, not a professional.

      Something about your tone suggests you missed the sarcasm.

      Dopey old me. I thought I had left the world of Professional Incitement back in high school. Little did I know.

      Delete
    5. Got to use that sarcasm dealie with a man my age.



      Speak kindly of the dead, Bobbo.


      ---"Zinn, a decent guy"---

      I did.

      b

      Delete
    6. "Something about your tone suggests you missed the sarcasm."

      Always a danger when you're the smartest one in the room.

      ...in your "mind."

      Delete
  38. Street Life and Antigun to the dog food factory.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  39. Okay, let's see if I got this straight. Obama gives the final ok on which terrorists they can bomb, and I'm an asshole because I don't disapprove. Is that about it?

    Doug, you're going batshit crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Is that about it?

      Yeh, pretty much.

      .

      Delete
    2. No Rufus, you're just being blockheaded and stupid.

      As usual.

      THE POINT IS, LEAKING ALL THE CLASSIFIED INFO ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF TO BOLSTER SHITHEAD'S WARRIOR CRED IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR TROOPS AS WELL AS THE HOMELAND.

      If you still don't understand, read Dianne Feinstein, maybe her words will penetrate your thick skull.

      Delete
  40. Many big cities, mostly controlled by democrats, the party of compassion and food stamps, have enacted bans on feeding the human hungry in parks, etc.

    Why?

    In Detroit, of course, we know the feeders of humans would be shot on sight, like those that feed the squirrels, and the geese.

    (by the way Quirk, I appreciated the warning on squirrels - I had been talking just the other day about that subject, and we both agreed the old wiring was better in homes, 'squirrel safe').

    It took the dreaded ACLU to end the 'no-feed the hungry humans' ordinance in that citadel of compassion, Las Vegas, for instance.


    http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/09/bans-on-feeding-homeless-have-always-bee

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      (by the way Quirk, I appreciated the warning on squirrels - I had been talking just the other day about that subject, and we both agreed the old wiring was better in homes, 'squirrel safe').


      We? What, you and the squirrel?

      I told you the other day not to trust that little prick.

      .

      Delete
    2. :)

      "with the woman next door" was inadvertantly omitted.

      b

      Delete
    3. Suthenboy|6.9.12 @ 8:34AM|#

      ....or shooting dogs. Dont forget about the dogs.

      "In New York City, for example, Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned food donations to the homeless earlier this year "because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content."

      Better that they starve than to get too much salt in their diet. I am sure there is some other reason for the ban, probably something to do with giving some supporter a monopoly on food supply/distribution. The bullshit justification is so fucked up as to make heads spin. I laughed out loud the first time I read that. That new yorkers havent hanged bloomberg in times square is testiment to the city's stupidity.


      What is it about big cities that makes nearly everyone there brain dead?

      b

      Delete
    4. Quirk, do you know?

      b

      Delete
    5. .

      Not a clue, Bob.

      Although some have speculated there is not enough ethanol in the gasoline.

      .

      Delete
  41. From the Bunker following arrival of news of Scot Walker's victory:

    "It's not spending, IT'S INVESTING IN OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE


    ...there's only one place left to go...

    ...Sacramento

    It's the last bastion of imbeciles.

    They'll put free hookers and cocaine on our health plan as
    long as we say it's for the children...
    "

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hey, look!

    Over on the left side of the video in the green tent:

    Max!

    ReplyDelete