The Republican Thread

[Steff]

And that is my point. But everyone is just so happy to see her fail. That's the part that pisses me off. And for the 10,000th time, I don't even like her.

 

 

"Giddy" is not the same as embarrassed. Which is what Dems, and this Repub, here felt and posted about. I don't recall one person "laughing" about it. And I don't think anyone was happy to see her "fail". Time and time again Dems brought up how she was thrown to the wolves and set up to take the fall in the event of a loss.

 

[lostfan]

I don't recall one person "laughing" about it. And I don't think anyone was happy to see her "fail".

I did.

 

I don't recall what I said in this forum exactly, but sorry, it was funny to be seeing people saying that whether it was true or not. And if she fails, that means the gimmick is over, and a real politician can take her place.

[Steff]

I did.

 

I don't recall what I said in this forum exactly, but sorry, it was funny to be seeing people saying that whether it was true or not. And if she fails, that means the gimmick is over, and a real politician can take her place.

 

 

I stand corrected. No surprise there's one in every crowd.

[lostfan]

I stand corrected. No surprise there's one in every crowd.

I'm that asshole.

[Steff]

I'm that asshole.

 

 

[kapkomet]

"Giddy" is not the same as embarrassed. Which is what Dems, and this Repub, here felt and posted about. I don't recall one person "laughing" about it. And I don't think anyone was happy to see her "fail". Time and time again Dems brought up how she was thrown to the wolves and set up to take the fall in the event of a loss.

There's a lot of people that want to see her fail. I do as well, but not like this. She needs to get mowed down on the issues, not superficial bulls*** like this.

 

[Steff]

There's a lot of people that want to see her fail. I do as well, but not like this. She needs to get mowed down on the issues, not superficial bulls*** like this.

 

 

She got mowed down on every issue she opened her mouth about. This BS was simply icing on the cake.

[kapkomet]

She got mowed down on every issue she opened her mouth about. This BS was simply icing on the cake.

And one is very different then the other.

 

 

[Texsox]

Palin 2012

 

There is a little bit of irony that people talk about how biased the media is, and how great bloggers are. I wonder how many people voted based on b.s. and falsehoods about a candidate?

[Steff]

And one is very different then the other.

 

 

So what's your point? She drove the car with everyone in the carpool lane to her "I may be smart but most of the time I act and speak like a total moron and sound like one, too" party and you are angry at folks for finding some humor in that? If she was to be tore down you wanted it to be because of things related to the issues, which is what happened so who cares what the Bevis and Butthead (no offense lostfan) crowd thinks.

 

At the very least I think it would be a good idea to stop backhandedly insulting posters here who had a strong feeling against her. JMO.

[NorthSideSox72]

So what's your point? She drove the car with everyone in the carpool lane to her "I may be smart but most of the time I act and speak like a total moron and sound like one, too" party and you are angry at folks for finding some humor in that? If she was to be tore down you wanted it to be because of things related to the issues, which is what happened so who cares what the Bevis and Butthead (no offense lostfan) crowd thinks.

 

At the very least I think it would be a good idea to stop backhandedly insulting posters here who had a strong feeling against her. JMO.

Let's take a deep breath. This is, after all, the GOP thread. And all Kap is saying, as far as I can tell, is that he'd rather see her taken down on the issues.

 

I happen to agree with you that she elected to play the country bumpkin aw shucks act up beyond reality, because she thought it would work. It didn't, and I'm glad. But some people will honestly not care about that one way or the other, and only care about her issue stands. Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

[lostfan]

I actually have a pretty long list of substantive reasons not to like her. The Beavis and Butthead stuff I just feel like she set herself up for because I find the "everyman/everywoman" act so shallow and obnoxious. So when it's brutally shot down I can't help but to laugh. It's about time. Now let's get someone in there I can have healthy agreements or disagreements with, like it should be.

Edited November 17, 2008 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

So what's your point? She drove the car with everyone in the carpool lane to her "I may be smart but most of the time I act and speak like a total moron and sound like one, too" party and you are angry at folks for finding some humor in that? If she was to be tore down you wanted it to be because of things related to the issues, which is what happened so who cares what the Bevis and Butthead (no offense lostfan) crowd thinks.

 

At the very least I think it would be a good idea to stop backhandedly insulting posters here who had a strong feeling against her. JMO.

Oh bloody hell. I have "strong feelings against her" as you put it. My post had nothing to do with "insulting" anyone. So what the hell is that remark for?

 

Back to the issue, my only point continues to be this is the kind of stuff that's ridiculous on so many levels (she said Africa's a COUNTRY LOLERZ !@#$@#$^) when it's an outright lie specifically meant to smear her. How many times do I have to say I don't even like Sarah Palin, not at all, I think she's a terrible national politician (she may be fine for Alaska, and that's their choice), but it's asinine to have people in the media attack her like a rabid dog on things that are outright lies specifically meant to make her even more stupid then she already appears to be.

 

I have no issue whatsoever that she gets ridiculed on her ignorance of real issues, not some fabricated made up bulls*** just to make a hit piece up on her. Can I make that any more plain?

[Cknolls]

On another note: Via Powerlineblog:

 

 

 

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by global warming alarmist James Hansen, has been a chief source of "data" to support climate hysteria. Repeatedly, though, GISS data have been shown to be flawed, if not fraudulent. Now, it's happened again:

 

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

 

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

 

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

 

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

 

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

 

As the scientific evidence continues to accumulate, it becomes increasingly clear that "global warming" hysteria is based on a combination of bad science and fraud.

 

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+a...rticle13385.htm

 

 

 

I would like to ask Big Al for comments.

 

 

[juddling]

On another note: Via Powerlineblog:

 

 

 

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by global warming alarmist James Hansen, has been a chief source of "data" to support climate hysteria. Repeatedly, though, GISS data have been shown to be flawed, if not fraudulent. Now, it's happened again:

 

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

 

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

 

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

 

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

 

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

 

As the scientific evidence continues to accumulate, it becomes increasingly clear that "global warming" hysteria is based on a combination of bad science and fraud.

 

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+a...rticle13385.htm

 

 

 

I would like to ask Big Al for comments.

 

 

 

First rule of Fight Club: Never question the Goracle!!!!!!!

 

 

 

[Texsox]

It certainly is nice to see that Palin has had a lasting impact on political discourse in America.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...house-useconomy

 

The high priests of the bubble economy

If Barack Obama really wants things to change, he shouldn't be seeking economic advice from Clinton-era officials

 

Those following the meeting of Barack Obama's economic advisory committee could not have been very reassured by the presence of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both former Treasury secretaries in the Clinton administration. Along with former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin and Summers compose the high priesthood of the bubble economy. Their policy of one-sided financial deregulation is responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

 

It is important to separate Clinton-era mythology from the real economic record. In the mythology, Clinton's decision to raise taxes and cut spending led to an investment boom. This boom led to a surge in productivity growth. Soaring productivity growth led to the low unemployment of the late 1990s and wage gains for workers at all points along the wage distribution.

 

At the end of the administration, there was a huge surplus, and we set target dates for paying off the national debt. The moral of the myth is that all good things came from deficit reduction.

 

The reality was quite different. There was nothing resembling an investment boom until the dot-com bubble at the end of the decade funnelled vast sums of capital into crazy internet schemes. There was a surge in productivity growth beginning in 1995, but this preceded any substantial upturn in investment. Clinton had the good fortune to be sitting in the White House at the point where the economy finally enjoyed the long-predicted dividend from the information technology revolution.

 

Rather than investment driving growth during the Clinton boom, the main source of demand growth was consumption. Consumption soared during the Clinton years because the stock market bubble created $10tn of wealth. Stockholders consumed based on their bubble wealth, pushing the saving rate to record lows, and the consumption share of GDP to a record high.

 

The other key part of the story is the high dollar policy initiated by Rubin when he took over as Treasury secretary. In the first years of the Clinton administration, the dollar actually fell in value against other currencies. This is the predicted result of the deficit reduction. Lower deficits are supposed to lead to lower interest rates, which will in turn lower the value of the dollar.

 

A lowered dollar value will reduce the trade deficit, by making US exports cheaper to foreigners and imports more expensive for people living in the US. The falling dollar and lower trade deficit is supposed to be one of the main dividends of deficit reduction. In fact, the lower dollar and lower trade deficit were often touted by economists as the primary benefit of deficit reduction until they decided to change their story to fit the Clinton mythology.

 

The high dollar of the late 1990s reversed this logic. The dollar was pushed upward by a combination of Treasury cheerleading, worldwide financial instability beginning with the East Asian financial crisis and the irrational exuberance propelling the stock bubble, which also infected foreign investors.

 

In the short-run, the over-valued dollar led to cheap imports and lower inflation. It incidentally all also led to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, putting downward pressure on the wages of non-college educated workers.

 

Like the stock bubble, the high dollar is also unsustainable as a long-run policy. It led to a large and growing trade deficit. This deficit eventually forced a decline in the value of the dollar, although the process has been temporarily reversed by the current financial crisis.

 

Rather than handing George Bush a booming economy, Clinton handed over an economy that was propelled by an unsustainable stock bubble and distorted by a hugely over-valued dollar.

 

The 2001 recession was relatively short, but the economy continued to shed jobs for almost two years after the recession ended. Because President Bush refused to abandon the high dollar policy, the only tool available to boost the economy was the housing bubble. In addition to the growth created directly by the housing sector, the wealth created by this bubble led to an even sharper decline in saving than the stock bubble.

 

Of course, the housing bubble is now in the process of deflating. The resulting tidal wave of bad debt has created the greatest financial crisis since the second world war. With the loss of $8tn in housing wealth, consumption has seized up, throwing the economy into a severe recession.

 

While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last eight years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble driven growth that brought us where we are today. (The deregulation was one-sided, because they did not take away the "too big to fail" security blanket of the Wall Street big boys.)

 

For this reason, it was very discouraging to see top Clinton administration officials standing centre stage at Obama's meeting on the economy. This is not change, and certainly not policies that we can believe in.

[DBAHO]

Should he be taking advice from Bush Era Economic Advisers then?

 

Seems as if at least during the Clinton Era, the American Economy was doing just fine.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather take advice from people who have a proven record in doing a good job with the economy then from those who have flushed it down the toilet, so to speak.

[lostfan]

There is no one group of people who flushed the economy down the toilet, so it's actually kind of a silly argument.

[southsider2k5]

Should he be taking advice from Bush Era Economic Advisers then?

 

Seems as if at least during the Clinton Era, the American Economy was doing just fine.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather take advice from people who have a proven record in doing a good job with the economy then from those who have flushed it down the toilet, so to speak.

 

That's just it. That track record is bogus. It's like taking a click at Russian Roulet and thinking you are invincible because you didn't get the bullet.

[Rex Kickass]

That's just it. That track record is bogus. It's like taking a click at Russian Roulet and thinking you are invincible because you didn't get the bullet.

 

I think Rubin was warning against the housing bubble on public radio several years ago though on Marketplace. I think that's him. He's the really short guy right?

[DBAHO]

There is no one group of people who flushed the economy down the toilet, so it's actually kind of a silly argument.

Well I think there were steps that at least could have been taken to would have minimised the impact of the recession that we're all now experiencing.

 

It may not be fair, but people are going to look at the Economic Crisis and blame Bush because he was the one in charge and let it all go to s***. That may not be right, but at least around the world that's the way it's been portrayed.

 

Hell, the guy didn't even know what the G20 stood for (and the Australian PM just got snubbed by Bush because it got leaked).

[Steff]

Oh bloody hell. I have "strong feelings against her" as you put it. My post had nothing to do with "insulting" anyone. So what the hell is that remark for?

 

Back to the issue, my only point continues to be this is the kind of stuff that's ridiculous on so many levels (she said Africa's a COUNTRY LOLERZ !@#$@#$^) when it's an outright lie specifically meant to smear her. How many times do I have to say I don't even like Sarah Palin, not at all, I think she's a terrible national politician (she may be fine for Alaska, and that's their choice), but it's asinine to have people in the media attack her like a rabid dog on things that are outright lies specifically meant to make her even more stupid then she already appears to be.

 

I have no issue whatsoever that she gets ridiculed on her ignorance of real issues, not some fabricated made up bulls*** just to make a hit piece up on her. Can I make that any more plain?

 

 

 

No. You are crystal on that point. Your disgust with those here has been vocal and clear. And since you choose to take the high road why don't you leave those that choose to take a different one alone as it's their right to have such opinion. That's all I am saying.

 

As for the issue, you've been around a long time and this isn't the first time this type of behavior has taken place. Perhaps because she doesn't have a penis it's more out there, but this happens every day. What I find ridiculous is the "save Sarah from the rabid dogs" crusade. Sarah laid with the dogs of her own free will. And now the dogs are biting her. It's politics and she seems to be rising above it just fine.

[Steff]

Let's take a deep breath. This is, after all, the GOP thread. And all Kap is saying, as far as I can tell, is that he'd rather see her taken down on the issues.

 

I happen to agree with you that she elected to play the country bumpkin aw shucks act up beyond reality, because she thought it would work. It didn't, and I'm glad. But some people will honestly not care about that one way or the other, and only care about her issue stands. Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

And some care about the bs. Nothing wrong with that either. The respect needs to be both ways. That's all I'm saying.

[kapkomet]

No. You are crystal on that point. Your disgust with those here has been vocal and clear. And since you choose to take the high road why don't you leave those that choose to take a different one alone as it's their right to have such opinion. That's all I am saying.

 

As for the issue, you've been around a long time and this isn't the first time this type of behavior has taken place. Perhaps because she doesn't have a penis it's more out there, but this happens every day. What I find ridiculous is the "save Sarah from the rabid dogs" crusade. Sarah laid with the dogs of her own free will. And now the dogs are biting her. It's politics and she seems to be rising above it just fine.

And I voiced my opinion that said opinion is in my opinion ridiculous. It's the same stuff that was posted for months about Obama and all we read is how ridiculous it all was. Where were you then for the respect speech? That's actually why I started the whole "RSO (Rock Star Obama)" thing, because he was/is untouchable, but I digress.

 

By the way, I could care less that she's a she. Call it the Dan Quayle syndrome. It's the same damn thing, I b****ed about that 20 years ago, and I'm b****ing about this now, because I hate it when they destroy people over NOTHING. I don't care if she makes an idiot of herself and then gets thrown to the wolves on real issues, she has it coming then.

 

I think what's even more funny is, we're saying the same thing and getting all hung up on the details of how it's being said. I'll cry uncle now.