Disqus - Latest Comments for lurxst

Re: Ignoring Krauthammer or aiding Second Coming? Palin predicts Jewish “flocking” to Israel

Jillmz — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:24:32 -0000

Yeah, actually - it is a surprise. People who enter public service, esp. with an interest in representing all 310 million of us, in a country that is firmly based on the laws made by humans and not by God, needs to project respect for that. To the extent that Palin does not project that or believe it or plan on promoting that, in light of the fact that she is an impulsive politician and could run for office again, Walters should have pressed her for why she is asserting what she asserted. THEN Palin can say, because I believe in Left Behind-oriented philosophies being applied, or whatever. Again - she picks on others for going through charades and not being as they seem - time for her to just put this out there too.

Re: Ignoring Krauthammer or aiding Second Coming? Palin predicts Jewish “flocking” to Israel

lurxst — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:31:05 -0000

Is it any surprise that Palin's entire global perspective is straight from the "Left Behind" series of novels?

Re: Dealing With Conscience-Driven Joe

lurxst — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:15:04 -0000

Hmm Joe's received about $1,037,402 from the health insurance industry, that couldn't be influencing his conscience could it?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.p...

Or maybe its just his burning desire to remain relevant.
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/10/...

Or maybe its because his wife sits on the board of directors for Wellpoint.

Re: When Did Classic Liberalism Die?

lurxst — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:11:39 -0000

So the Democratic party, through their solidly controlled liberal media arm will become like Fox News?

Re: The GOP and the Coming Civil War

lurxst — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:12:32 -0000

I love all the handwringing and despair over the U.S. becoming socialist. Like that could ever happen in an oligarchy.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

Dr_J — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:08:27 -0000

Why does it have the be the middle class that gives up its safety net?

Because it's always the middle class that pays for government spending, if not through taxes through higher prices. There are a lot more of them than the rich, and they have less flexibility to dodge financial bullets. When you raise taxes on the rich, you make it worth their while to shift investment strategies. When you raise taxes on corporations, you force them to raise prices on the middle class.

As for "ever plunging tax rates," I'd love a hit of whatever you're smoking. During the 20th century taxes more than tripled from under 10% to over 30%. Citizens of the US spend more of their money paying taxes than providing food, clothing and housing, combined.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

DaGoat — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:08:55 -0000

Thats akin to saying we have to fix the broken tail light before we can replace the transmission to get the car going again.

What they're doing now is akin to spending money on a nice hood ornament before fixing the transmission.

The bank and auto bailouts were sold to us by Geithner and Obama as necessary to protect the middle class.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

lurxst — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:05:06 -0000

~~How about we ask Congress to spend on vital infrastructure before expanding safety nets to the middle class, and ask that they stop spending on pet pork projects back in their home districts, before they put their hands out for more revenue?~~ CS

Why does it have the be the middle class that gives up its safety net?

Far as I can recall in recent memory a lot of huge corporations and banks got a gigantic safety net - bailout, under the guise of protecting the essential financial infrastructure.

Pork barrel spending, while problematic because it limits its federal dollar benefit to limited number of constituents, is miniscule in the big budget picture and wouldn't amount to 1% of actual costs for needed infrastructure projects. Thats akin to saying we have to fix the broken tail light before we can replace the transmission to get the car going again.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

CStanley — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:07:46 -0000

Is there somewhere a real risk that the rich will "take their ball and go home" if they feel taxes are too high? They already exploit loopholes in existing tax structure to use offshore banks and hide taxable assets and income despite ever plunging tax rates. At what point would a wealthy person say, "thats alright, my taxes are fair". The answer, "never".

You don't have to get to a point where a wealthy person decides his/her taxes are 'fair'. But historical data does show that there's a point at which people stop putting so much time and effort into sheltering income (again, this isn't dependent on them deciding that fairness has been acheived, but rather on the diminishing returns of how much they can gain by going through hoops and hiring accountants who can creatively shelter their income and assets from taxation.)

Meanwhile, the infrastructure that these rich individuals and corporations depend on is crumbling from lack of tax revenue to keep them in working order. The army that protects their overseas investments. The schools that produce their workforce.
Oh please. With the size of the US federal govt's annual budget, you honestly don't think that the money could be allocated more wisely to address the real shortfalls in some of those needed areas? How about we ask Congress to spend on vital infrastructure before expanding safety nets to the middle class, and ask that they stop spending on pet pork projects back in their home districts, before they put their hands out for more revenue? With healthcare 'reform', we're being told that it's necessary because the current obligations are unsustainable, so Medicare spending will have to be cut. We're told that this can happen by cutting waste and fraud, not cutting actual benefits. Well, great...then take care of those problems and let us see the cost savings first, before messing with the rest of the healthcare system.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

lurxst — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:35 -0000

Is there somewhere a real risk that the rich will "take their ball and go home" if they feel taxes are too high? They already exploit loopholes in existing tax structure to use offshore banks and hide taxable assets and income despite ever plunging tax rates. At what point would a wealthy person say, "thats alright, my taxes are fair". The answer, "never".

I think its all a lot of hooey. Wealthy individuals haven't stopped putting their money into the stock market because they fear having to pay taxes on the income. The money is there but it is currently being used to further money games that arent generating real growth. That fact has a very tenuous connection to anything doing with "tax rates". Meanwhile, the infrastructure that these rich individuals and corporations depend on is crumbling from lack of tax revenue to keep them in working order. The army that protects their overseas investments. The schools that produce their workforce.

I call bull and say its not that Goldwater reforms haven't really been adequately implemented. I think there's been ample demonstration that the philosophy is flawed and will not produce the intended results. Instead its only destroying the middle class. We are already seeing the wall street rich begin to "eat themselves" as they run out of pensions and middle class investors to rip off.

Re: Bush’s Doctrine of Preemptive Attack About to Be Changed?

lurxst — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:25:48 -0000

The problem with the Bush Doctrine was that in most cases any policy like that should only be reserved for strikes against nations that pose an actual mortal threat to the U.S. (read: nukes) and shouldn't allow the same standards to be used against a country that can only minimally impact our interests through terrorist attacks. I think that despite any logic that might be contained in the Bush Doctrine it is irrevocably attached to the act of using lies and trumped up intel to launch attacks against a country that DIDN'T pose a mortal threat to the U.S.

Re: “Tonight, We Are All ‘Too Irrational To Be Dealt With Sanely’”

lurxst — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:02:51 -0000

So will Republicans hate the NFL now?

Re: My Own Mixed Reaction To Obama Peace Prize

Doriancito — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:28:15 -0000

Lurxst:

I don't think so, at least according to this note Obama sent, probably to virtually every Democrat:

"Dorian --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama "

Re: My Own Mixed Reaction To Obama Peace Prize

lurxst — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:21:01 -0000

I was just thinking about how horrible it will be if this award goes to Obama's head and he starts thinking he can really resolve some of these problems, like he was the President of the United States or something,

Re: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Doesn’t Bring American Partisan Peace Ceasefire

lurxst — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:45:30 -0000

Congratulations President Obama. I hope the award will encourage him to stand true to his convictions and not bow to political expediency, especially when it comes to cleaning up Bush' foreign policy clusterf**k.

Re: Intellectual Conservatism Isn’t Dead: It’s Resting (Guest Voice)

lurxst — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:21:35 -0000

I like that term, political entertainment complex. It is a good shorthand for much of the feigned outrage and outright buffoonery that populates talk radio and the Fox Propaganda network. The commenters and talking heads are not out to reform policy or establish idealogical ohesion amongst their listeners. They are making money by throwing firebrands, trying to top each other as to who is most outrageous or who hates libruls the most. Beck is a blowhard who would like to think he is Stephen Colbert, only without the wit and good writers.

Re: IF I was Michael Steele…

lurxst — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:59:53 -0000

Steele is doing such a great job, I hope they can let him continue without interference.

Re: Why Talk Radio Political Culture Conservatives are “Winning” and will Win

JeffersonDavis — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:06:45 -0000

"1 credit crisis due to lack of regulatory oversight"

That was a Barney Frank DNC vote to NOT regulate the credit and Fannie/Freddie mess.
That is documented fact.

And if Janet Reno and Eric Holder are saints, then you are a bit naive.

As for the rest, you're on target.

Re: Why Talk Radio Political Culture Conservatives are “Winning” and will Win

lurxst — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:40:30 -0000

EEllis, I will see your "my deranged obsession is reasonable theirs isn't" and raise you,

1 war in Iraq
1 credit crisis due to lack of regulatory oversight,
1 No Fly List,
1 lying Attorney General,
1 outed CIA operative for political gain,
and,
100 tortured unlawful enemy combatants.

I got more too. ; )

Re: Why Talk Radio Political Culture Conservatives are “Winning” and will Win

EEllis — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:40:28 -0000

"But, they were evil war mongers who shredded the constitution..."

I love this... "My deranged obsession is reasonable theirs isn't" kind of a thing cracks me up.

"It was rare to find a conservative commenter or any sort who did the same during Bush's most heinous decisions and policies. It was a love fest."

It obvious that you just didn't listen to it. Bush was railed against for high spending, not being hard enough on immigration, Iraq, the list goes on and on. It would be hard to find a commentator shy of Hannity who didn't trash the Pres on multiple issues.

Re: Why Talk Radio Political Culture Conservatives are “Winning” and will Win

lurxst — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:29:07 -0000

"No more so than the dehumanizing of Bush and Cheney, IMO, tidbits. They were portrayed as evil warmongers and were often accused of shredding the Constitution "

But, they were evil war mongers who shredded the constitution...

I think an important point so far missed is that Bush, et.al, earned their villification through their actions and over a period of eight years. So far Obama has been in office 9 months. The rhetoric against him was hyped up before he even took office and had done "anything" to deserve the scorn. To me this is a sign of a deeper problem than idealogical differences. Its rooted in racism, fear and a desperation ploy by the republicans to remain viable in any pathetic fashion they can muster. There are plenty of progressive bloggers, congresspersons and journalists who are holding Obama's feet to the fire in regards to his pledges of leadership and policy changes. It was rare to find a conservative commenter or any sort who did the same during Bush's most heinous decisions and policies. It was a lovefest.

How many more years of failed conservative policies are we supposed to endure before everyone finally figures out its based on greed, misanthropy and only serves to make a small percentage of the rich richer while turning the rest of us into waiters and car washers. No thanks.

Re: Newsmax Calls for a Military Coup in U.S.

GeorgeBruce — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:14:31 -0000

lurxst said:

"When some fringe wacko, filled full ...gibberish; encouraged by...elected Republican(s)...calling the President a "liar" .....or the "anti-christ"; ..... inundated with radio blowhards questioning the ... the president's citizenship and equating him as some marxist dictator, when this wacko finally blows and does something to ... kill the president or some member of congress, it will be really great to look back at all this and say, "Wow, we never saw it coming."

Well, we have been there and done that. In 1963 the President of the US was killed by a communist. Oswald had clear ties to the Soviet Union and communism in general. That he was a communist, whether he had a card on him at the time, or not, was undisputed. In fact, the Soviets rejected Oswald as a nut case, exactly as the Michigan Militia rejected McVeigh. World War III was adverted because sane people realized that the Oswald murder of a US President was not the opening act of a nuclear war that would have killed hundreds of millions, but rather the lone act of a madman who hoped to influence history beyond his weight, just as McVeigh hoped.

Did some "saw it coming?" Maybe, but sanity prevailed.

I hope that Obama serves out his full term and is soundly rejected by the voters in 2012.

I trust that you will join with me in hoping that, should anything happen to the President in the meantime, whoever may be responsible, (including the not unlikely possibility that another communist might do it), sanity will again prevail and the country will deal with our tragedy in a constitutional manner and that democracy will be preserved.

For one thing, I shudder to think what race riots may occur if anything happens to the President, and my first suspicions, should that happen, will be cast to the left and not to the right.

After all, as the Romans asked, “who benefits?” Just as the left tried to take advantage of Teddy Kennedy’s death to press forward with nationalized health care, I am sure that the untimely death of President Obama would result in calls for the full implementation of his agenda, ( and the carving of his visage on Mount Rushmore.) Any attempt to overthrow Obama is the worst possible thing that could happen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and the best possible thing for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Re: Newsmax Calls for a Military Coup in U.S.

lurxst — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:51:34 -0000

When some fringe wacko, filled full of Fox Propaganda Network gibberish; encouraged by his elected Republican lawmakers calling the President a "liar" or "enemy of humanity" or the "anti-christ"; having been inundated with radio blowhards questioning the validity of the president's citizenship and equating him as some marxist dictator, when this wacko finally blows and does something to try and kill the president or some member of congress, it will be really great to look back at all this and say, "Wow, we never saw it coming."

Fairness doctrine returns.

Re: Is Extremism Becoming Mainstream?

lurxst — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:14:10 -0000

I believe that many leftwing conspiracies seem to come from some basis in fact or are making up for lack of sunshine in regards to government activity. Right wing conspiracies on the other hand, seem to be crafted from whole cloth with little logical connection to real events.

Leftwing "extremists" said:
BushCo lied about Iraq buying yellowcake, turns out they were right.
BushCo lied about Saddamn having WMDs, what do you know.
BushCo had a plan to invade Iraq from day one of the administration, now we have an FBI whistleblower finally released from her gag order, naming names.
Patriot Act wasn't about terrorism, turns out its mostly use for drug enforcement.
BushCo politicized the justice department to pursue political rivals, turns out its true.
BushCo lied when they said we weren't torturing people, what is revealed looks like torture to just about everyone in the world.

Righwingers are worried that Obama is Kenyan and will push us all into socialism if we get a national health system. I don't think they really know what socialism is, and apparently a birth certificate isn't good enough proof for them.

I think its dishonest to attempt to equivocate reasoned beliefs with lunatic ramblings in pursuit of some centrist nirvana where we are all just so cool and can say all of it is extremist.

Carrying a gun to a political rally. Language that borders on death threats. Thats extremist.

Re: Campaign Free Speech For Corporations—Why Not?

lurxst — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:41:00 -0000

Unfortunately $250K does not purchase the kind of media that $5 million does.

Removing corporations from the equation is the only good answer. I would say allow them to contribute and then have the FEC be more stringent in monitoring, but the FEC is just as often toothless and unduly influenced. We've seen too many examples of how regulations get enforced based on the priorities of the party in power, who gets appointed to the commission. Even with FEC recommendations corporations too often get a pass. If they are willing to spend a billion to get their way, it matters little to a corporation if that is done in media buys or in fines. They still get their way.

The thing that makes me most angry is that I am certain that via my 401k I have shares in companies that are using my investment to actively campaign against my interests, regardless of a shareholder vote or any such democratic legerdemain.

I am always made sick to my stomach when I listen or read debates about the foundation of corproate personhood in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, to think that it was based on an "accidental" clerical error and not on actual Supreme Court agreement.

It will end up being the degradation of our democracy into ruin.