Florida State Seminoles

[Toemeesleather]

I am much more afraid of the rabble majority who tend to become clickish, selfish and short-term ...


Congress?

[Owlman]

People. The House, especially, really tends to do what the majority wants and the majority are clickish, selfish and short-term. They want government, for them. Cut government for everybody but them. But since they are the majority, that's a lot of government.

Reminds me of some of my students who insists that government does too much and doesn't do anything for them, except they all are on school loans, government backed, no collateral needed.

[eCat]

Cain decides to stay in the race

and Comedy Central, Jay Leno, David Letterm and Jimmy Fallon are happy as kids on Xmas morning

[sardis]

People. The House, especially, really tends to do what the majority wants and the majority are clickish, selfish and short-term. They want government, for them. Cut government for everybody but them. But since they are the majority, that's a lot of government.

Reminds me of some of my students who insists that government does too much and doesn't do anything for them, except they all are on school loans, government backed, no collateral needed.

I agree that there is hypocrisy. Ask any conservative church goer about whether there is too many people on the dole and they'll say yes, but take away their refundable child tax credit and it's like you're stealing from them.

That's why it's your duty Owlman, as a molder of young minds, to convince them to get off such entitlements...

[eCat]

I'm just the opposite, I want as many tax credits as I can get - I'm taxed too much, paying for government spending that is out of control

Don't make people give up tax credits, make them give up money they get from the government in the form of someone elses tax dollars.

[Owlman]

My first duty is to teach them the law. My advocation is to teach them to think independent of talking heads and the few friends they actually have. (I can't stand the "everyone I know believes ......."). As though that scientifically means anything.

[Jungle Rat]

I'm just the opposite, I want as many tax credits as I can get - I'm taxed too much, paying for government spending that is out of control

Don't make people give up tax credits, make them give up money they get from the government in the form of someone elses tax dollars.

I love tax credits. Haven't worked since 06 because of them. Love tax credits!

[Bklyn]

Barney Frank

http://www.5min.com/Video/The-Best-of-B ... -517217125

[Owlman]

The post-racial generation: At least they excluded funerals

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples


http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-church-v ... 19318.html

[Owlman]

"Go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company." - Mark Twain

[Bklyn]

That story tickled me a bit when I read it last night, because the pastor said the ban was done for "unity." He didn't explain, obviously, but I had a bit of trouble trying to figure out a way to work that as a plausible reason.

[Bklyn]

But President Obama soon found himself faced with a choice: he could change U.S. politics, or change U.S. policy. He chose changing policy. The stimulus package passed amid constant congressional horse trading, and ultimately required an 11th- hour deal that shaved $100 billion off the total and infuriated his supporters. He broke a campaign promise when he signed the 2009 budget, which was larded with earmarks. The crucial negotiations that led to health-care reform did not take place in front of C-SPAN’s cameras, as Obama had promised, and to secure the bill’s passage, the Democrats agreed to a special deal for Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson that quickly acquired the name, “the cornhusker kickback.”

The legislative process proved stronger than Obama’s campaign promises. His election didn’t usher in a new post- partisan era. If anything, partisanship grew stronger. Nor did his administration fulfill its promise to lock lobbyists out of the halls of power. A number of ex-lobbyists got special permission to work in the Obama administration. Public confidence in Washington is at a record low, and for good reason. Three months ago, the United States of America almost defaulted on its debt for no good reason (unless you consider Republican obstructionism “a good reason”). That’s not change anyone would have believed in.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-0 ... klein.html

[eCat]

I can't believe that anyone thought electing Obama would usher in an era of bi-partisanship.

Heck, I voted for him counting on gridlock. I'm stunned he got done as much as he did.

[Bklyn]

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-0 ... nauer.html

(on a Bloomberg News tear right now b/c I'm looking at my Twitter feed instead of reviewing pvt equity stock distributions...oh well)

[sardis]

Those Wolfpack houligans...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/1 ... wells.html

[AugustWest]

at least no-one got pepper sprayed.

[eCat]

forgive my political vice

------------------------------

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the Republican Jewish Coalition will host a presidential-candidates forum featuring Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Not invited is the GOP candidate currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The explanation:

Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.

"He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."

Link via the Twitter feed of an approving Jamie Kirchick.

Brooks gave a more detailed critique of Ron Paul back in May:

"As Americans who are committed to a strong and vigorous foreign policy, we are deeply concerned about the prospective presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While Rep. Paul plans to run as a Republican, his views and past record place him far outside of the Republican mainstream. His candidacy, as we've seen in his past presidential campaigns, will appeal to a very narrow constituency in the U.S. electorate. Throughout his public service, Paul has espoused a dangerous isolationist vision for the U.S. and our role in the world. He has been a virulent and harsh critic of Israel during his tenure in Congress*. Most recently Paul gave an interview in which he voiced his objection to the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Brooks added, "We certainly respect Congressman Paul's right to run, but we strongly reject his misguided and extreme views, which are not representative of the Republican Party."

Weird punctuation in the original.

So what are these "extreme views"? Over at The Huffington Post, Dovid Efune, the director of The Algemeiner Journal and Gershon Jacobson Foundation, offers an explanation:

Paul's positions on Israel have been almost uniformly derided. Whilst claiming to be non-interventionist on the issue, he has routinely adopted Arab talking points on Israel, even comparing Gaza to 'a concentration camp.' His Isolationist mantra may appeal to fiscal conservatives, but in the real world its implementation would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies.

Anti Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman has a perhaps unintentionally interesting take about Paul, U.S. politics, and Israel:

with the exception of Ron Paul, there is not much difference between the parties

And no orthodoxy-definition would be complete without David Frum:

Of the 8 candidates competing for the Republican presidential nomination, 7 declared themselves intense supporters of the State of Israel, the sole exception being crank no-hoper Ron Paul.

I'm no expert on Ron Paul's Israel views, and I reserve the right to be outraged later by what I don't know now, but what I find interesting here is the namecalling-to-content ratio. Here, let's count it out:

Name-calling: 1) "misguided and extreme," 2) "so far outside of the mainstream," 3) "like...Barack Obama," 4) "will appeal to a very narrow constituency," 5) "dangerous isolationist vision," 6) "uniformly derided," 7) "claim[s] to be non-interventionist," 8) "Isolationist," 9) "differen[t]," 10) "crank."

Content: 1) "virulent and harsh critic of Israel," 2) "voiced his objection to the...killing of Osama Bin Laden," 3) "routinely adopted Arab talking points," 4) "compar[ed] Gaza to 'a concentration camp," 5) "would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies."

Looking at the five content items, 1) is supported only by 4); 2) intentionally left out the phrase "legal method of," 3) is a general and largely contentless insult, 4) is a discrete piece of hyperbole that rubs my literalist heart the wrong way, too (though the full quote contains two qualifiers: "Palestinians are virtually in like a concentration camp"); and 5) is the Transitive Property run amok, though it does at least hint at the real-world question/critique of what, exactly, replaces hegemonic American responsibility for world affairs, and which bad actors are more likely to do badder things.

Does this, plus Paul's principled rejection of all foreign aid, his relentless espousal of the "blowback" theory of terrorism, and his negligence in allowing to appear under his name during the first Clinton administration some newsletter conspiracy theorizing about (among other things) the 1993 World Trade Center bombing being a "setup by the Israeli Mossad" enough to disqualify him for the grownups' table on foreign policy?

Well, I'm neither Republican nor Jewish nor a member of a Coalition, so the immediate event is not my call (though I do believe that dissonance is more illuminating than seven-part harmony). That said, this seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. The fact that he is a political outlier on an effectively bipartisan U.S. foreign policy that has become increasingly expensive and unpopular strikes me as a count in favor, not against. And nothing Paul said at last month's largely grotesque American Enterprise Institute foreign policy debate struck me as more objectionable than Mitt Romney's grovel that his first overseas trip as president would be to Israel.

[10ac]

The post-racial generation: At least they excluded funerals

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples


http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-church-v ... 19318.html

I guess people have the right to be idiots. I wonder what the Reverand Jeremiah Wright thinks about the issue.

[Bklyn]

My guess is that he thinks it's backwards and bigoted. I'm also not sure of his logical connection to the story.

Ron Paul

I was gonna comment on those statements about Ron Paul above, but eCat (or the author, not sure if any part of the above was personal editorializing by eCat) hammered all the points I was going to make.

[Owlman]

My guess is that he thinks it's backwards and bigoted. I'm also not sure of his logical connection to the story.

I could see no connection between the story and Wright at all. It's like saying, 'I wonder what Bill Buckner thinks about the issue?' or "I wonder what Benny Hinn thinks about the issue?"