Obama pusses out again

[SirNitram]

Man runs for president. Wants to be president of 'All of America'. Disdains partisanship. Speaks of compromises and reaching across the table. Promotes bipartisanship. Wants to move away from partisan-ruled D.C. to a better path.

Idiot Liberal Response: HE'S A PARTISAN LIBERAL!

My response: Clintonesque, but worth it to avoid freakin' Palin and 'Flip a coin, on heads I change my position this hour' McCain.

[Patrick Degan]

Your point being...? If Democrats are so willing to cave in to Republicans even though they've got the majority in both houses and the White House, what makes you think they'dve blocked anything McCain would have proposed? And if the electoral winds were blowing in McCain's direction back in 2008, what makes you so certain that the present majorities in both houses would have been the same?

If only conservative bills would be passed under, then there's nothing we can do and we're all fucked regardless.

Um, veto? Obama can at least veto conservative bills. McCain would sign them in a heartbeat.

Don't try to strawmander me, Skippy. The practical solution, if you can't be certain of getting what you want, is to at least prevent something worse from happening —which is what definitely would have occurred with a McCain victory and not count on Naderite pipe-dreams about things getting so bad under Republicans that they'll become unelectable and "real leftists" will find the way open to the corridors of power and usher in the New Golden Age™. Unless my memory is faulty, you were more or less taking that idiotic position during the campaign.

Yes, my idea was for Obama to lose because it was obvious that things were going to get really bad when the housing bubble burst and I wanted the republicans to get their fair share of the blame for it rather then the democrats getting all of it so that when the 2012 elections rolled around everybody would be even more sick of them and the democrat would win in a landslide. I came up with that idea in the summer and unfortunately the economy crashed in the fall and Obama was elected in a landslide. I was expecting it to happen sometime in 2009 after Obama took office, and then Obama would get all the blame.

Riiiiiiight. Because it's far more important for the "right people" to get the blame and for those conditions to magickally happen for the Coming Leftist Renaissance™ no matter how badly millions of ordinary people suffer as a result. In short, you're an idiot.

And I still haven't heard your idea on how to fix things.

Slowly, brick by brick, with whatever can be passed. Which is all that can practically be achieved under current conditions. Which is far more practical than your hopes for the magickal Coming Leftist Renaissance™ heralded first by national collapse. In short, you're an idiot.

Did you miss all the drama over the "Nuclear Option" a few years back? If the republicans get their majority back in 2012, how long do you think they're going to let the democrats filibuster bills for before they push the button? Even the greatest spineless pussy in the world is promising filibuster reform, there's no way the republicans are going to do any less.

Which means either the filibuster is weakened or made so easy to impose and so difficult to break that it can whipsaw back on either side which pushed through the "reform". Which is why it really won't ever be "reformed" because neither party is going to want to remove that "nuclear option", which means it won't get the votes. Which means, in short, that you are an idiot.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that this is not necessarily a matter of "spine or willpower". It seems to me more like he was sincere about that "trying to work with both sides" crap, which means that he has a strong tendency to accomodate and compromise. That's a preference, not a lack of "spine or willpower".

That's true, but he's spent long periods of time doing nothing while letting other people fail to achieve compromise on his behalf, especially on health care. Or doing nothing while letting the status quo proceed more or less unchanged, especially on foreign policy in the Middle East. Or doing nothing while his appointees mismanage the situation, as he's been accused of doing on the economy.

Preferring to accomodate and compromise can be a personal choice that doesn't reflect how much spine you have. Choosing to do nothing... that says a bit more about you.

On top of that, the issues where he's doing nothing are ones that many of his supporters specifically wanted action on. They wanted to get out of Iraq, or to get something resembling a civilized health care system for this country, or for him to strip away some of the layers of power that have accumulated on Wall Street. Granted, he was very above-board about how he wanted to seek compromise and "work with both sides," but it seems like he's totally unable to deal with an opposition that isn't willing to play along.

I wouldn't mind so much that he compromises away important policy points if he showed more willingness to actually get shit done when the compromises failed, especially on health care. From outside the administration, it seems like he came perilously close to just saying "Well, that health care thing I was elected to handle didn't pan out. Pesky Republicans... Too bad, guess it'll just have to wait another decade or two."

[Dominus Atheos]

Your point being...? If Democrats are so willing to cave in to Republicans even though they've got the majority in both houses and the White House, what makes you think they'dve blocked anything McCain would have proposed? And if the electoral winds were blowing in McCain's direction back in 2008, what makes you so certain that the present majorities in both houses would have been the same?

If only conservative bills would be passed under, then there's nothing we can do and we're all fucked regardless.

Um, veto? Obama can at least veto conservative bills. McCain would sign them in a heartbeat.

How many bills has Obama vetoed so far? The stimulus, in any other universe, would be heralded as a conservative masterstroke. It had nearly $300 in tax cuts; even more then the infrastructure spending ($288b vs $274b), and before they were in the minority they had no problem with Keynesian spending and actually worship it when it comes to the military. The healthcare bill is shaping up to be even more in line with conservative beliefs. It has the individual mandate which will force millions more people to purchase healthcare regardless of whether they want to buy it; $848 billion in subsidies which, since there's no public option, are basically just direct payments to the insurance industry. Again, in any sane universe this bill would make republicans go like this.

Yes, my idea was for Obama to lose because it was obvious that things were going to get really bad when the housing bubble burst and I wanted the republicans to get their fair share of the blame for it rather then the democrats getting all of it so that when the 2012 elections rolled around everybody would be even more sick of them and the democrat would win in a landslide. I came up with that idea in the summer and unfortunately the economy crashed in the fall and Obama was elected in a landslide. I was expecting it to happen sometime in 2009 after Obama took office, and then Obama would get all the blame.

Riiiiiiight. Because it's far more important for the "right people" to get the blame and for those conditions to magickally happen for the Coming Leftist Renaissance™ no matter how badly millions of ordinary people suffer as a result. In short, you're an idiot.

It's not like Obama has actually done much to fix things. Besides the $800 billion dollar stimulus bill where only $274b was actual stimulative spending, he's done almost nothing. In fact one of his first acts as president was to threaten to veto any attempts by congress to cancel the no-strings-attached bank bailout. And since then he hasn't done anything besides make a few noises regarding reining in the banks and preventing them from doing the exact same things that caused the first crash.

And I still haven't heard your idea on how to fix things.

Slowly, brick by brick, with whatever can be passed. Which is all that can practically be achieved under current conditions. Which is far more practical than your hopes for the magickal Coming Leftist Renaissance™ heralded first by national collapse. In short, you're an idiot.

And what if "whatever can be passed" is nothing? Because that's certainly how it looks now.

Did you miss all the drama over the "Nuclear Option" a few years back? If the republicans get their majority back in 2012, how long do you think they're going to let the democrats filibuster bills for before they push the button? Even the greatest spineless pussy in the world is promising filibuster reform, there's no way the republicans are going to do any less.

Which means either the filibuster is weakened or made so easy to impose and so difficult to break that it can whipsaw back on either side which pushed through the "reform". Which is why it really won't ever be "reformed" because neither party is going to want to remove that "nuclear option", which means it won't get the votes. Which means, in short, that you are an idiot.

You're the idiot for not learning from history. At one time the Republicans were only days away from getting rid of it. Also, while I may support a republican president at least I'm not fucking retarded enough to think the GOP is smart enough to show the kind of forethought required to not remove the filibuster when the democrats are blocking it. Really, after that statement you should probably just log off you computer, sell all your earthly possessions, and go live in a hut in the forest; alone with your shame.

[stormthebeaches]

That's true, but he's spent long periods of time doing nothing while letting other people fail to achieve compromise on his behalf, especially on health care. Or doing nothing while letting the status quo proceed more or less unchanged, especially on foreign policy in the Middle East. Or doing nothing while his appointees mismanage the situation, as he's been accused of doing on the economy.

Obama's foreign policy in the middle east is quite different from Bush's. His policy towards Iran, for a start, is a complete U-turn from Bush's policy. His policy on Afghanistan is different, he actually has a plan and has set a timetable for pulling out whilst Bush was ignoring the whole situation. As for Iraq, soldiers ARE being pulled out of the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... iki-allawi

There are no indications yet of widespread voter fraud and US officials in Iraq today cautiously predicted that the mass withdrawal of their forces would begin in earnest about 60 days after a final result was determined.

The US commanding general, Ray Odierno, said: "Today I believe we are going to be on 50,000 [troops] by 1 September. We believe we are right on track."

That number matches a pre-election pledge to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by the end of the summer as part of a security agreement signed between Baghdad and Washington. Odierno said 35,000 US troops had left Iraq since September and another 45,000 were expected to pull out between May to November.

[Patrick Degan]

Um, veto? Obama can at least veto conservative bills. McCain would sign them in a heartbeat.

How many bills has Obama vetoed so far? The stimulus, in any other universe, would be heralded as a conservative masterstroke. It had nearly $300 in tax cuts; even more then the infrastructure spending ($288b vs $274b), and before they were in the minority they had no problem with Keynesian spending and actually worship it when it comes to the military. The healthcare bill is shaping up to be even more in line with conservative beliefs. It has the individual mandate which will force millions more people to purchase healthcare regardless of whether they want to buy it; $848 billion in subsidies which, since there's no public option, are basically just direct payments to the insurance industry. Again, in any sane universe this bill would make republicans go like this.

Obama has not had a measure come up before him he judged veto-worthy, so the question is at this point moot. And despite what you may think of the stimulus bill, it did stave off the complete collapse of the financial system in this country, which would have resulted in a worse disaster than the Great Depression. But then, I forget: to you this is a necessary step towards achieving that magickal New Left Renaissance™ in this country.

Yes, my idea was for Obama to lose because it was obvious that things were going to get really bad when the housing bubble burst and I wanted the republicans to get their fair share of the blame for it rather then the democrats getting all of it so that when the 2012 elections rolled around everybody would be even more sick of them and the democrat would win in a landslide. I came up with that idea in the summer and unfortunately the economy crashed in the fall and Obama was elected in a landslide. I was expecting it to happen sometime in 2009 after Obama took office, and then Obama would get all the blame.

Riiiiiiight. Because it's far more important for the "right people" to get the blame and for those conditions to magickally happen for the Coming Leftist Renaissance™ no matter how badly millions of ordinary people suffer as a result. In short, you're an idiot.

It's not like Obama has actually done much to fix things. Besides the $800 billion dollar stimulus bill where only $274b was actual stimulative spending, he's done almost nothing. In fact one of his first acts as president was to threaten to veto any attempts by congress to cancel the no-strings-attached bank bailout. And since then he hasn't done anything besides make a few noises regarding reining in the banks and preventing them from doing the exact same things that caused the first crash.

So, in short, your little knickers are in a twist because Obama staved off the country's crash into ruin like you hoped would come about in order to achieve your magickal New Left Renaissance™. Also, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Obama's foreign policy has been markedly different from the Bush "My Way Or The Highway" approach and he is in fact trying to wind down the two wars we're currently mired in. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you are, in fact, an idiot.

And I still haven't heard your idea on how to fix things.

Slowly, brick by brick, with whatever can be passed. Which is all that can practically be achieved under current conditions. Which is far more practical than your hopes for the magickal Coming Leftist Renaissance™ heralded first by national collapse. In short, you're an idiot.

And what if "whatever can be passed" is nothing? Because that's certainly how it looks now.

Sooooooooo..... it's far better to simply wait for everything to fix itself after the country crashes into ruin because that will bring about, somehow, someway, the magickal New Left Renaissance™? Have I mentioned lately that you are, in fact, an idiot?

Did you miss all the drama over the "Nuclear Option" a few years back? If the republicans get their majority back in 2012, how long do you think they're going to let the democrats filibuster bills for before they push the button? Even the greatest spineless pussy in the world is promising filibuster reform, there's no way the republicans are going to do any less.

Which means either the filibuster is weakened or made so easy to impose and so difficult to break that it can whipsaw back on either side which pushed through the "reform". Which is why it really won't ever be "reformed" because neither party is going to want to remove that "nuclear option", which means it won't get the votes. Which means, in short, that you are an idiot.

You're the idiot for not learning from history. At one time the Republicans were only days away from getting rid of it. Also, while I may support a republican president at least I'm not fucking retarded enough to think the GOP is smart enough to show the kind of forethought required to not remove the filibuster when the democrats are blocking it. Really, after that statement you should probably just log off you computer, sell all your earthly possessions, and go live in a hut in the forest; alone with your shame.

Insane babble is hardly a refutation of anything, Atheos. Especially as, had the GOP actually gotten what it wanted back in 2005 (which wasn't at all a given, since the Republicans didn't have solid support on the measure as your own article points out and which you might have noticed had you bothered to read it), they would not now have the filibuster weapon they're using against the Obama agenda today —as, ironically, this American Spectator op/ed piece points out. Which is why the compromise put forth by the "Gang of 14" was agreed to so swiftly —because neither party wants to lose the filibuster as a weapon. Which means the point I was making is still valid. Which means that you are, in fact, an idiot.

[Dominus Atheos]

Um, veto? Obama can at least veto conservative bills. McCain would sign them in a heartbeat.

How many bills has Obama vetoed so far? The stimulus, in any other universe, would be heralded as a conservative masterstroke. It had nearly $300 in tax cuts; even more then the infrastructure spending ($288b vs $274b), and before they were in the minority they had no problem with Keynesian spending and actually worship it when it comes to the military. The healthcare bill is shaping up to be even more in line with conservative beliefs. It has the individual mandate which will force millions more people to purchase healthcare regardless of whether they want to buy it; $848 billion in subsidies which, since there's no public option, are basically just direct payments to the insurance industry. Again, in any sane universe this bill would make republicans go like this.

Obama has not had a measure come up before him he judged veto-worthy, so the question is at this point moot. And despite what you may think of the stimulus bill, it did stave off the complete collapse of the financial system in this country, which would have resulted in a worse disaster than the Great Depression. But then, I forget: to you this is a necessary step towards achieving that magickal New Left Renaissance™ in this country.

No, the stimulus barely qualified as a bandaid. As I just said, the actual "stimulative" spending only came to $274 billion. Even the bills biggest supporters aren't saying it single-handedly saved the country from a bigger recession. Here's a chart showing the predicted effect of the stimulus and the actual impact:


Found on google image search

As any person who wasn't so stupid they need to go live in a hut alone with their shame can clearly see the economy is actually performing worse then the Obama administration predicted it would with no stimulus. If the stimulus was actually supposed to prevent a bigger recession then we must be in a depression. Idiot.

Riiiiiiight. Because it's far more important for the "right people" to get the blame and for those conditions to magickally happen for the Coming Leftist Renaissance™ no matter how badly millions of ordinary people suffer as a result. In short, you're an idiot.

It's not like Obama has actually done much to fix things. Besides the $800 billion dollar stimulus bill where only $274b was actual stimulative spending, he's done almost nothing. In fact one of his first acts as president was to threaten to veto any attempts by congress to cancel the no-strings-attached bank bailout. And since then he hasn't done anything besides make a few noises regarding reining in the banks and preventing them from doing the exact same things that caused the first crash.

So, in short, your little knickers are in a twist because Obama staved off the country's crash into ruin like you hoped would come about in order to achieve your magickal New Left Renaissance™. Also, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Obama's foreign policy has been markedly different from the Bush "My Way Or The Highway" approach and he is in fact trying to wind down the two wars we're currently mired in. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you are, in fact, an idiot.

What the fuck is it with you and my supposed obsession with a magickal New Left Renaissance™? I haven't mentioned anything about that in this thread. Way back almost 2 years ago I made the prediction that there was going to be a huge economic crash and the party that was in power when it happened would be made unelectable, so I wanted the republican to get elected so they would get blamed rather then Obama and the democrats.

Lo and behold the economy crashed that fall and the republicans got the blame and the Democrats swept the elections that year! It sure looks like my prediction came true. While I admit I seriously overestimated the democrats willingness to take advantage of it, I'd call a Democratic president elected on a 200 electoral vote margin and both houses claiming supermajorities to be a magickal New Left Renaissance™. I only wish the democrats elected had the spine and willingness to take advantage of it.

Idiot.

Slowly, brick by brick, with whatever can be passed. Which is all that can practically be achieved under current conditions. Which is far more practical than your hopes for the magickal Coming Leftist Renaissance™ heralded first by national collapse. In short, you're an idiot.

And what if "whatever can be passed" is nothing? Because that's certainly how it looks now.

Sooooooooo..... it's far better to simply wait for everything to fix itself after the country crashes into ruin because that will bring about, somehow, someway, the magickal New Left Renaissance™? Have I mentioned lately that you are, in fact, an idiot?

Red herring. I still haven't heard your plausible idea for fixing things. Idiot.

Which means either the filibuster is weakened or made so easy to impose and so difficult to break that it can whipsaw back on either side which pushed through the "reform". Which is why it really won't ever be "reformed" because neither party is going to want to remove that "nuclear option", which means it won't get the votes. Which means, in short, that you are an idiot.

You're the idiot for not learning from history. At one time the Republicans were only days away from getting rid of it. Also, while I may support a republican president at least I'm not fucking retarded enough to think the GOP is smart enough to show the kind of forethought required to not remove the filibuster when the democrats are blocking it. Really, after that statement you should probably just log off you computer, sell all your earthly possessions, and go live in a hut in the forest; alone with your shame.

Insane babble is hardly a refutation of anything, Atheos. Especially as, had the GOP actually gotten what it wanted back in 2005 (which wasn't at all a given, since the Republicans didn't have solid support on the measure as your own article points out and which you might have noticed had you bothered to read it), they would not now have the filibuster weapon they're using against the Obama agenda today —as, ironically, this American Spectator op/ed piece points out. Which is why the compromise put forth by the "Gang of 14" was agreed to so swiftly —because neither party wants to lose the filibuster as a weapon. Which means the point I was making is still valid. Which means that you are, in fact, an idiot.

Stop lying about the content of a link. Seriously, its just embarrassing. Even if people are too lazy to click through, you can bet that your opponent will post the relevant portion and expose you for the liar you are.

While Republicans hold 55 Senate seats, three members of the GOP rank and file have already announced plans to side with the Democrats. By most counts, that left the balance of power in the hands of a small group of GOP senators who remained publicly uncommitted — Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Of that group, Democrats viewed Warner as most likely to side with them, and he has been active in compromise negotiations under way in recent days.

Oh hey, look at that! It says the republican party has 48 confirmed votes and 4 fence sitters of which only one was likely to side with the democrats. Wow, look at how easy it was to expose your blatant lie. Idiot.

Anyway, back to your main point. The gang of 14 compromise was "agreed to" by anyone besides the 14 members. Your article is just an opinion by some reporter, it doesn't actually quote any senators regarding their feelings about keeping the filibuster. You still have no evidence that the republican party was ready and willing to get rid of over something as stupid as appointments of district judges. Imagine what will happen when the democrats try to block a measure that cuts spending in certain progressive areas.

[ray245]

What the fuck is it with you and my supposed obsession with a magickal New Left Renaissance™? I haven't mentioned anything about that in this thread. Way back almost 2 years ago I made the prediction that there was going to be a huge economic crash and the party that was in power when it happened would be made unelectable, so I wanted the republican to get elected so they would get blamed rather then Obama and the democrats.

Lo and behold the economy crashed that fall and the republicans got the blame and the Democrats swept the elections that year! It sure looks like my prediction came true. While I admit I seriously overestimated the democrats willingness to take advantage of it, I'd call a Democratic president elected on a 200 electoral vote margin and both houses claiming supermajorities to be a magickal New Left Renaissance™. I only wish the democrats elected had the spine and willingness to take advantage of it.

Idiot.

Do you really think it is better for the US if your economy crash further? Hell, if the economy of the US crashed further, do you really think it is going to be easier for the democrats to fix the economy?

The last time an incompetent party tried to find solutions to fix the great depression, right-wing parties gained more influence and power in Europe.

[Patrick Degan]

You have to keep in mind, Ray, that Atheos believes in a politics of the Ideal, as opposed to how things actually work in any real world.

[Patrick Degan]

And I will be responding in detail to the rest of his drivel later this evening after work.

[Darth Wong]

So if McCain were in power, Atheos figures that right-wing politics would be destroyed? Bullshit. The right-wingers would just push their theo-con agenda while their idiot followers and the Mindless Middle are idiotically convinced that any problems are still the fault of social programs and spending left over from left-wingers from Bill Clinton all the way back to FDR.

Look at what's happening now: in one year, the entire population of America somehow completely forgot that George W. Bush ran up a huge deficit. The real problem the left faces in America is the fact that America is extremist right-wing by nature. This is the country that served as a template for the Nazi eugenics program in the 1930s. This is the country that imprisoned labour leaders in the early part of the 20th century. This is the country that loved slavery so much that a civil war was necessary to break it of that particular economic addiction. This is the country which suffered a breakdown of civil order in the 1960s over race issues. America is a far-right nation. Every single movement left has been an agonizing struggle, and there is no perfect time for it. All you can do is try, roll the dice, and know that you'll probably be vilified by right-wing historical revisionists no matter what happens.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What's needed is ground-up popular democratic and social movements to drive and push change. Nixon was the wrong electoral choice for ending Vietnam, but he still did, because he had to. Most of the social and democratic gains have been won by mass popular movements since (and including) the Revolution, and that is the way forward. The people and the left need to stop putting all their faith in electoralism and hoping if they line up as a loyal army for whatever centrist/moderate state corporate creature gets propped up on the near-right he'll generously bestow change on the public. Yes, vote for the less bad choice when it comes to that, but form your own independent movements and MAKE them implement your agenda. The Canadians have national health care not through elite generosity but because their democratic institutions are generally more vital throughout the society. Broader-based labor unions and laborite parties (the former largely co-opted or obliterated in the U.S., the latter completely obliterated on the national level) with more democratic organization helped form and push alternative policies on the elite-state sector. And eventually managed to spread them to the whole nation, where the mass public would prevent any great breakdown of them. The challenge in the U.S. is the extraordinary strength of its ruling elite, its historical success in narrowing public thought and discussion to a tiny right-wing range while successfully suppressing genuinely democratic or laborite popular forces and messages, and counteracting its contemporary entrenchment from these starting advantages. The U.S. public is not genetically or essentially-culturally different from the rest of the developed West, but it is much more deeply indoctrinated, atomized, and dissipated from organized and progressive institutions of civil society. We have no popular lobby the Canadians (and the rest of the West) did for universal health care.

[Vympel]

Electoralism can bring about positive outcomes on the more local level (i.e. Congress and Senate) by way of primary challenges. There are increasing numbers of primary challenges of puppet corporatist Democrats by grass-roots opponents - if the Democrats start to realise that they can't take the support of their base for granted and they'll cop primary challenges that will a: turf them out at worst or b: reduce their campaign war chests then they'll change their behavior.

Problem is that doesn't really work with Presidents.

[The Romulan Republic]

Electoralism can bring about positive outcomes on the more local level (i.e. Congress and Senate) by way of primary challenges. There are increasing numbers of primary challenges of puppet corporatist Democrats by grass-roots opponents - if the Democrats start to realise that they can't take the support of their base for granted and they'll cop primary challenges that will a: turf them out at worst or b: reduce their campaign war chests then they'll change their behavior.

Problem is that doesn't really work with Presidents.

True, but Obama could be doing more without Congressional obstructionism.

[Patrick Degan]

So if McCain were in power, Atheos figures that right-wing politics would be destroyed?

Oh, that was exactly what Atheos' vision for the New Left Renaissance™ was predicated upon, as the idiot himself pontificates upon back in 2008:

So what I'm hoping, and willing to take a gamble on is after their messiah loses, democrats finally get it through their head that playing nice with republicans won't get them anywhere and they need to hit back, even harder then they get hit. Hopefully when 2012 rolls around, they can nominate someone cut from an entirely different cloth then Kerry and Obama, someone willing to go after every weak point their opponent has, with none of this "family is off limits" naive crap. Anyone care to guess what would happen if Obama had a 17 year old daughter that wasn't married and got knocked up? Here's my guess: the election would be over. Every member of the republican party would start hammering him on that, and every so called journalist would start mindlessly parroting those lines, and telling people this issue is important enough that because of it you can't vote for obama, and every moron sitting in front of the boob tube would believe them, and the election would be over with McCain winning in a landslide.

Which is what the media is best at: mindlessly parroting the talking points they are given. So many people think the media is biased, that not me. I think they're just so lazy they don't bother doing any analysis of anything to determine it's truth or importance, just what effect it may have on the election. I believe if democrats start employing the same media and spin tactics republicans do, the media would treat them the same as they treat republicans now (not Fox, obviously). So I'm hoping the 2012 democratic candidate will be a real candidate, and not a wishy washy push over like Kerry or Obama. I'm worried if Obama wins, the democrats might keep fielding candidates like them. That's the biggest reason I support John McCain.

The other reason is the attitude of the voting public. After the last 8 years, and especially after the 06 elections, I assumed Americans had learned their lesson about conservatism. But apparently not. Apparently they haven't figured out that the 3 major ideals of modern American are forcing as many people as possible to obey the rules people think are in a 2000 year old collection of books (which book is "thou shalt not get abortions" and "thou shalt let gay people marry" in again? Was it Leviticus or the Gospel of John?), helping the rich get richer even at the expense of the poor getting poorer, and keeping everyone scared so they don't realize the two previous things. My hope is that people wise up after another 4 years and the impending economic crash J, Her Grace, and the Admiral keep predicting which will be caused by the housing crisis caused by the deregulation of the market by republicans, the exploding deficit caused by the Iraq War and drunken sailor-like spending by the bush administration, and the climate crisis caused by global warming. Global warming may not be directly caused by republicans, but I just bet if Al Gore had been elected, we wouldn't be having this problem. After all those things happen, and if the Democrats can come out swinging and make sure the republicans get all the blame they deserve, they'll be swept out of office and running on a republican ticket will be a poison in almost every state in the union.

Obviously the last part is much less sure, end even the first part may never happen, so supporting McCain is a huge risk, but I don't see any other alternative. Letting things continue as they are is unacceptable.

And just seven posts in that same thread:

With luck, enough people will suffer as a result of 12 years of trickle-down economics and deregulation, and someone will have the balls to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, that people reject those principles and all the principles of conservatism in general. It's unlikely, and probably impossible, but the alternative is much worse. Think of it this way: It's a question of a lot of suffering over the next 4 years, or even more suffering spread out over the next hundred. Conservatism needs to die, and this is the best way I can think of.

Amusing, no?

[Simon_Jester]

Interesting. Heard it before, but I'm not sure it would work. Obviously.

Talking to the Duchess the other day convinced me that what we really need to do is repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and go back to appointing senators from the state legislatures.

That, or (this is my idea) just going to a damn parliamentary democracy. They work better; it's been proven quite well by now. Gah.

[Patrick Degan]

No, the stimulus barely qualified as a bandaid. As I just said, the actual "stimulative" spending only came to $274 billion. Even the bills biggest supporters aren't saying it single-handedly saved the country from a bigger recession. Here's a chart showing the predicted effect of the stimulus and the actual impact:


Found on google image search

As any person who wasn't so stupid they need to go live in a hut alone with their shame can clearly see the economy is actually performing worse then the Obama administration predicted it would with no stimulus. If the stimulus was actually supposed to prevent a bigger recession then we must be in a depression.

I never said the bill "singlehandedly saved the country from a bigger recession", so you know just where you can shove that little strawman of yours. Secondly, unemployment shot up at a rate which far exceeded the projections Obama's advisers were basing their own calculations upon when they were crafting the Stimulus package and by the time the measure passed Congress, it was too late to appropriate more money for it in the fiscal year or redraft the plan. However, as this Staten Island Advance article points out:

Despite Obama's bold promises, unemployment remains stubbornly high. But job losses have slowed dramatically.

And the nation's recent economic growth is real, even though the government has spent only one-third of the stimulus law's $862 billion so far. The program is to continue pumping federal money into the economy into 2011.

One year into the program.

Many states and local governments owe their fiscal survival to the stimulus. But those governments are scrambling to find ways to fill the holes in the coming year.

Thousands of road and bridge projects broke ground with stimulus money, helping to keep the anemic construction industry afloat. But job losses still were significant, with as many as one in four construction workers unemployed.

Obama used yesterday's one-year anniversary to offer his own assessment and, predictably, rated the effort an unprecedented success.

McMAHON CHIMES IN

"There has never been a program of this scale, moved at this speed, that has been enacted as effectively and as transparently as the recovery act," the president declared.

Staten Island Rep. Michael McMahon Rep. Michael McMahon (D-Staten Island/Brooklyn) chimed in, "My vote in support of the Recovery Act last February was a vote for every Staten Islander and Brooklynite who was struggling to make ends meet, for every small-business owner that feared she would have to close her doors and for every hard-working American who wondered how he would pay for his child's education or his elderly parents' care after their retirement savings had been lost. ...

"Our economy is starting to turn around and millions of jobs have been created and saved in the private and public sectors, including those of our teachers and first responders."

But the legacy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is yet to be sealed. In the next 12 months there will be a second wave of government spending, perhaps topping $300 billion. By this time next year, the country could have a better idea whether the program was a costly, debt-increasing blip that made ripples in the nation's economy, or a lifesaving jolt that shielded the country from a financial abyss.

Obama argued yesterday that the history already had been written. "One year later, it is largely thanks to the recovery act that a second depression is no longer a possibility," he said.

How are others to judge the recovery program?

When Obama launched it last year, he cast the program as bigger and better than an ordinary jobs bill. The program, he said, would provide lasting public works projects, improve education, save ailing state and local governments, offer relief to millions devastated by losing their jobs and homes and help provide much-needed health care.

Despite the broad range of those promises -- and evidence shows that at least some of them have been kept -- Obama's stimulus will forever be judged by jobs. By the time the stimulus program kicked in last April, the recession had cost the economy more than 6 million jobs. Since the program began, the nation has lost 2 million more.

Job creation became the administration's mantra. And the White House said the program would be held accountable with an unprecedented public report of every job linked to thestimulus


JOBS CREATED

Indeed, the jobs were documented one by one on a new government Web site, and the administration proudly pointed to more than 640,000 linked to the stimulus in the early months. It was the best evidence to prove that the stimulus was well on its way to fulfilling Obama's promise of 3.5 million jobs saved or created by the program.

But those counts were seriously flawed, including greatly exaggerated job claims, positions included that had nothing to do with the stimulus, and spending that had nothing to do with saving or creating jobs. It was a blow to Obama's efforts to prove the stimulus truly performed as promised, and it ended with the White House deciding to count jobs the old fashioned way -- by estimating.

When Obama signed the stimulus law, the nation's unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. His administration had promised the program would stop the jobless rate from passing 8 percent. But weeks after the stimulus became law, that threshold was broken.

The record is still mixed and far from complete, but the spending did start taking the edge off the worst effects of the recession —one of them being that whole states did not end up going broke last year. Oh, and as for your cute little chart, here's a more updated version:



Do I see the beginning of a downward trend in that curve? I believe I do.

Idiot.

You certainly are, as shall be further demonstrated:

So, in short, your little knickers are in a twist because Obama staved off the country's crash into ruin like you hoped would come about in order to achieve your magickal New Left Renaissance™. Also, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Obama's foreign policy has been markedly different from the Bush "My Way Or The Highway" approach and he is in fact trying to wind down the two wars we're currently mired in. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you are, in fact, an idiot.

What the fuck is it with you and my supposed obsession with a magickal New Left Renaissance™? I haven't mentioned anything about that in this thread. Way back almost 2 years ago I made the prediction that there was going to be a huge economic crash and the party that was in power when it happened would be made unelectable, so I wanted the republican to get elected so they would get blamed rather then Obama and the democrats.

Lo and behold the economy crashed that fall and the republicans got the blame and the Democrats swept the elections that year! It sure looks like my prediction came true. While I admit I seriously overestimated the democrats willingness to take advantage of it, I'd call a Democratic president elected on a 200 electoral vote margin and both houses claiming supermajorities to be a magickal New Left Renaissance™. I only wish the democrats elected had the spine and willingness to take advantage of it.

Oh, you did more than make a "prediction" (of a process that was already underway, which is rather like predicting more rain during the monsoon season), kiddo. Shall we just take a quick review of the imbecilities you were so eagerly spewing less than two short years ago, in the "Does McCain Already Have The Election Won" thread:

So what I'm hoping, and willing to take a gamble on is after their messiah loses, democrats finally get it through their head that playing nice with republicans won't get them anywhere and they need to hit back, even harder then they get hit. Hopefully when 2012 rolls around, they can nominate someone cut from an entirely different cloth then Kerry and Obama, someone willing to go after every weak point their opponent has, with none of this "family is off limits" naive crap. Anyone care to guess what would happen if Obama had a 17 year old daughter that wasn't married and got knocked up? Here's my guess: the election would be over. Every member of the republican party would start hammering him on that, and every so called journalist would start mindlessly parroting those lines, and telling people this issue is important enough that because of it you can't vote for obama, and every moron sitting in front of the boob tube would believe them, and the election would be over with McCain winning in a landslide.

Which is what the media is best at: mindlessly parroting the talking points they are given. So many people think the media is biased, that not me. I think they're just so lazy they don't bother doing any analysis of anything to determine it's truth or importance, just what effect it may have on the election. I believe if democrats start employing the same media and spin tactics republicans do, the media would treat them the same as they treat republicans now (not Fox, obviously). So I'm hoping the 2012 democratic candidate will be a real candidate, and not a wishy washy push over like Kerry or Obama. I'm worried if Obama wins, the democrats might keep fielding candidates like them. That's the biggest reason I support John McCain.

The other reason is the attitude of the voting public. After the last 8 years, and especially after the 06 elections, I assumed Americans had learned their lesson about conservatism. But apparently not. Apparently they haven't figured out that the 3 major ideals of modern American are forcing as many people as possible to obey the rules people think are in a 2000 year old collection of books (which book is "thou shalt not get abortions" and "thou shalt let gay people marry" in again? Was it Leviticus or the Gospel of John?), helping the rich get richer even at the expense of the poor getting poorer, and keeping everyone scared so they don't realize the two previous things. My hope is that people wise up after another 4 years and the impending economic crash J, Her Grace, and the Admiral keep predicting which will be caused by the housing crisis caused by the deregulation of the market by republicans, the exploding deficit caused by the Iraq War and drunken sailor-like spending by the bush administration, and the climate crisis caused by global warming. Global warming may not be directly caused by republicans, but I just bet if Al Gore had been elected, we wouldn't be having this problem. After all those things happen, and if the Democrats can come out swinging and make sure the republicans get all the blame they deserve, they'll be swept out of office and running on a republican ticket will be a poison in almost every state in the union.

Obviously the last part is much less sure, end even the first part may never happen, so supporting McCain is a huge risk, but I don't see any other alternative. Letting things continue as they are is unacceptable.

. . .

With luck, enough people will suffer as a result of 12 years of trickle-down economics and deregulation, and someone will have the balls to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, that people reject those principles and all the principles of conservatism in general. It's unlikely, and probably impossible, but the alternative is much worse. Think of it this way: It's a question of a lot of suffering over the next 4 years, or even more suffering spread out over the next hundred. Conservatism needs to die, and this is the best way I can think of.

Your programme for bringing about the New Left Renaissance™, in your own words from September of 2008.

Idiot.

You certainly are, simply on the basis of that spew of yours I've just quoted. But there's more to follow:

Sooooooooo..... it's far better to simply wait for everything to fix itself after the country crashes into ruin because that will bring about, somehow, someway, the magickal New Left Renaissance™? Have I mentioned lately that you are, in fact, an idiot?

Red herring. I still haven't heard your plausible idea for fixing things.

Asked and answered. But then, perhaps I didn't use simple enough words for your benefit. Let's try again: get done what you can, when you can, in whichever way your side can. Really, that actually is a plan compared to what you've ever offered: "Let Republicans grind America into powder -->?--> Eventual Happiness.

Idiot.

You certainly are one, as the evidence continues to demonstrate:

You're the idiot for not learning from history. At one time the Republicans were only days away from getting rid of it. Also, while I may support a republican president at least I'm not fucking retarded enough to think the GOP is smart enough to show the kind of forethought required to not remove the filibuster when the democrats are blocking it. Really, after that statement you should probably just log off you computer, sell all your earthly possessions, and go live in a hut in the forest; alone with your shame.

Insane babble is hardly a refutation of anything, Atheos. Especially as, had the GOP actually gotten what it wanted back in 2005 (which wasn't at all a given, since the Republicans didn't have solid support on the measure as your own article points out and which you might have noticed had you bothered to read it), they would not now have the filibuster weapon they're using against the Obama agenda today —as, ironically, this American Spectator op/ed piece points out. Which is why the compromise put forth by the "Gang of 14" was agreed to so swiftly —because neither party wants to lose the filibuster as a weapon. Which means the point I was making is still valid. Which means that you are, in fact, an idiot.

Stop lying about the content of a link. Seriously, its just embarrassing. Even if people are too lazy to click through, you can bet that your opponent will post the relevant portion and expose you for the liar you are.

While Republicans hold 55 Senate seats, three members of the GOP rank and file have already announced plans to side with the Democrats. By most counts, that left the balance of power in the hands of a small group of GOP senators who remained publicly uncommitted — Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Of that group, Democrats viewed Warner as most likely to side with them, and he has been active in compromise negotiations under way in recent days.

Oh hey, look at that! It says the republican party has 48 confirmed votes and 4 fence sitters of which only one was likely to side with the democrats. Wow, look at how easy it was to expose your blatant lie.

No, Atheos —instead, we'll see just why Salon.com also says that you're an idiot:

Apr 20, 2005 | A vote on the Republicans' nuclear option could come as early as next week, but it's still not clear that Bill Frist has the votes to blow up Senate tradition.

There are 55 Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Assuming that all the Democrats and independent Jim Jeffords -- who will announce his retirement today -- vote against the elimination of the filibuster, Frist will need to hold on to 50 votes from Republicans; Dick Cheney will provide the tie-breaking 51st vote if necessary. That means Frist can stand to lose five Republican senators. If he loses six, the nuclear option is dead.

Here's how the math looks now. John McCain and Lincoln Chafee have already announced that they'll vote no. Assuming they stick to their guns, Frist can win only if he limits his further losses to three. As the New York Times does the counting today, there are six Republicans who could go either way: Virginia's John Warner, who tells the Times that he sees the Senate as "the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority" and that people should be "very careful" before making any changes; Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has said she has "deep concerns" about going nuclear; Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, who said over the weekend that he's been telling both sides, "don't include me in your count right now"; Susan Collins of Maine, who says that, while she's concerned about the "overuse" of the filibuster, she's also "concerned that a rule change will further charge the partisan atmosphere to the point that we will not be able to conduct business"; Oregon's Gordon Smith, a blue-state Republican who said in February that he's urging his colleagues to find a way to avoid the nuclear option; and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who has at least paid lip service to the idea that he really, really wants to avoid the need for a "nuclear" confrontation.

The six are facing intense lobbying from their Senate colleagues; Warner had nearly back-to-back meetings with Frist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid Monday. They're getting a lot of external pressure, too -- and not all of it in the form of that silly Phil A. Buster animated advertisement. Frist will participate in a "Justice Sunday" program this weekend, a beamed-into-churches TV thing built around the idea that the Democrats' use of the filibuster is an attack on people of faith, and right-wing religious groups like Focus on the Family are holding Republicans feet to the fire. But there's also pressure coming from the other direction, and sometimes from unexpected sources. Gun Owners of America, which bills itself as America's only "no compromise gun lobby," is urging its members to fight the nuclear option. The reason? "Ending filibusters = more gun control."

Aaannnnnnnd:

WASHINGTON -- Somewhere in the midst of Bill Frist's opening statement Wednesday on George W. Bush's nomination of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals -- after Frist had blown off Harry Reid's suggestion for a senators-only meeting to discuss the nuclear option, after he'd argued at length that filibusters of judges were unprecedented and unconstitutional and never before even "contemplated" in more than 200 years of Senate history -- New York Sen. Chuck Schumer rose to ask whether the Senate majority leader might yield for a question.

Frist refused, saying he'd prefer to finish his statement first. So the Senate majority leader railed on, arguing that Republicans had treated Bill Clinton's nominees fairly and that the Senate must now "do its duty and vote" on every last one of Bush's nominees. When he finally finished, Schumer rose to ask his question again.

"Isn't it correct," Schumer asked Frist, "that on March 8, 2000, my friend from Tennessee voted to uphold the filibuster of a judge, Richard Paez?"

The correct answer is yes -- Frist was one of a handful of Republican senators to vote against cloture on Paez' nomination -- but that's not what Frist said Wednesday morning. Instead, he launched into a rambling response that began with a stammering stutter-step -- "Mr. President, the, in response, the Paez nomination, we'll come back and discuss it further..." -- and ended with the claim that the Democrats were trying to "assassinate" judicial nominees by filibuster. In between, Frist revealed the extraordinarily thin reed on which the Republicans have hung their trumped-up outrage over the way Democrats have treated Bush's judicial nominees -- and possibly the reason that Frist is having such a hard time holding on to the Republican votes he needs to go nuclear.

By putting Owen's nomination on the Senate floor Wednesday morning, Frist took his first concrete step toward forcing a confrontation over the nuclear option. Although centrists from both parties are still working furiously to strike a compromise deal that would avert what Republican Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter calls "mutual assured destruction," Frist has made his intentions clear: Unless he's assured up-or-down votes on every Bush nominee, he'll move to kill the Democrats' right to filibuster -- with a tie-breaking vote by Dick Cheney if necessary -- early next week.

But Frist needs to hold on to 50 Republican votes to get there, and Schumer's question Wednesday underscores the difficulty he faces: Too many people -- and maybe even too many Republican senators -- understand that what the Democrats have done to Bush's nominees is at least no worse than what Republicans did to Bill Clinton's.

To justify changing the rules of the Senate -- and breaking those rules to change them -- Frist desperately needs to be able to argue that he's engaged not in an affirmative power grab but in a defensive reaction to the sins of the Senate Democrats. Ideally, he'd be able to claim that the Democrats' filibusters are unprecedented. But he can't do that, and everyone knows it: In 1968, the Republicans led a filibuster of Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's pick to serve as chief justice of the United States.

So Frist has fallen back on a more careful formulation; he says that there's no precedent for denying a floor vote to a judicial nominee who enjoys the support of a majority of the Senate. Frist injected that "majority support" qualifier into his speech Wednesday so often and so abruptly that it sometimes seemed that someone was sending him electric shocks to remind him.

But then came Schumer's jolting question, and Frist had to narrow his claims about what's unprecedented all over again. The problem: Paez was ultimately confirmed, meaning that he necessarily had "majority support." It's the ultimate "gotcha." Not only have Republicans done that which they say is unprecedented, but Frist is one of the ones that did it.

Frist tried mightily Wednesday to distinguish his vote against cloture on Paez from the Democrats' votes against cloture on Bush's nominees, but his explanations never quite took. Paez ultimately got a vote, Frist insisted, but that vote just confirmed that he had "majority support." The Paez filibuster wasn't led by party leadership, Frist said. True enough, but what's worse -- having a nominee blocked by 44 members of the Senate voting in line with their leaders, or having a nominee blocked by 14 renegade senators, as the Paez nomination was, or having a nominee blocked by a secret "blue slip" hold from a single senator, as dozens of Clinton's nominees were?

Frist also seemed to argue that the Paez nomination was an isolated event, while Democrats, he said, have "obstructed not one nominee but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 in a routine way." But as Judd Legum notes at Think Progress, a filibuster of judicial nominees is either constitutional or it isn't. There's no way for Frist to argue the Constitution allows him to filibuster one judicial nominee but prohibits someone else from filibustering 10.

Frist was followed on the floor by Harry Reid and then by Specter, whose role as Judiciary Committee chairman puts him in charge of managing the debate over the Owen nomination on the Senate floor. But if Specter was supposed to be leading the charge for the Republicans, it seemed that Frist's performance -- and Specter's own reluctance to embrace the nuclear option -- had made him exactly the wrong man for the job.

Specter all but begged for a deal that would avert Frist's plan, and he admitted what Frist would not. Acknowledging that Republicans had used their own tricks to block "more than 70" Clinton nominees, Specter said the nuclear option controversy "did not arise because the Democrats thought [Bush's nominees] were unqualified, but because it's payback time for the Republicans' treatment of Bill Clinton's nominees." On paper, it sounds like an accusation. In person, it was all admission. "It's important to acknowledge," he said, "that both sides have been at fault."

Specter refused to say how he'll vote on the nuclear option, tracking the language of GOP Virginia Sen. John Warner, who told reporters the day before that there was power in remaining silent. Specter said that the Senate works best -- that moderation and consensus can be reached -- when neither party is sure of its vote count.

That certainly seemed to be the situation Wednesday afternoon. While Frist and Reid continued to rattle sabers and take shots at one another -- in an afternoon appearance on the Senate steps, Reid said the only person in a black robe Americans should fear is Darth Vader -- a half-dozen or so senators continued a flurry of meetings aimed at averting the nuclear option. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters that the time for a compromise is upon the Senate; the first in a series of votes leading to the nuclear option -- and with it, the clarity that will give one side or another a whole lot more bargaining power -- could come this week.

The second Salon.com piece is dated May 19th —a mere four days from the USA Today.com article you're so desperately pinning your argument upon. You may care to notice, unless you have the reading-comprehension skills of a gerbil, that the Salon.com piece clearly shows that Frist is not coming up with the votes he needs to try to ram the nuclear option through. So no, Atheos, you really are not qualified to comment upon anybody else's alleged dishonesty about what a news story actually says.

Idiot.

Yes, you are. Manifestly. But let's go on to your stumble to the finish line anyway:

Anyway, back to your main point. The gang of 14 compromise was "agreed to" by anyone besides the 14 members. Your article is just an opinion by some reporter, it doesn't actually quote any senators regarding their feelings about keeping the filibuster. You still have no evidence that the republican party was ready and willing to get rid of over something as stupid as appointments of district judges. Imagine what will happen when the democrats try to block a measure that cuts spending in certain progressive areas.

But the Salon.com articles certainly do so, and had you actually had competent knowledge of the players involved, you might have known where to look for further sources to confirm or deny your "gotcha". Specter, Hagel, Chaffee and Warner are known longtime veterans of the Senate with a great deal of respect for institutional continuity, while neither Snowe or Collins of Maine were going to be so eager to vote with the knuckledragging Right, being moderates themselves. The veterans know how useful a tool the filibuster is, as Warner himself pointed out in debate, which is another reason they'd not be so eager to weaken or abolish it, while Snowe and Collins only foresaw further and far more acrimonious partisan division of the Senate following in the wake of the nuclear option actually being carried through. Furthermore, Lindsey Graham was also not eager for the showdown, as pointed out here:

Lindsey Graham (R-SC), spoke clearly and put the filibuster fight in perspective in talking about the business of the Senate needing to go on, reminding the White House specifically, that the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and that kids are dying in Iraq.

And, um, the "Gang of 14" compromise was agreed to by the fourteen senators involved plus a majority of senators from both parties, so the only conceivable explanation for your saying anything like "The gang of 14 compromise was "agreed to" by anyone besides the 14 members" is the one which has been so amply demonstrated not only in this rebuttal but throughout this thread: the evident fact that you are, indeed, an idiot.

No, Atheos, I think rather is is you who needs to be looking up hut properties on some deserted island to go live on in shame.

[Dominus Atheos]

So if McCain were in power, Atheos figures that right-wing politics would be destroyed? Bullshit.

I haven't said anything like that in over a year and a half. What I said was

At least if McCain had been elected then the republicans would be forced to actually govern instead of saying no to everything. And maybe if Obama had lost the democrats would have learned a lesson about not being huge pussies like Obama was during the campaign.

Patrick Degan keeps insisting on bringing up ancient obsolete posts of mine because apparently he's not smart enough to debate me on my statements here and now.

[Patrick Degan]

Patrick Degan keeps insisting on bringing up ancient obsolete posts of mine because apparently he's not smart enough to debate me on my statements here and now.

No, Atheos, I bring up your past idiocies to demonstrate the context in which your current idiocies are based. Sorry if that's so inconvenient for you.

[Dominus Atheos]

So if McCain were in power, Atheos figures that right-wing politics would be destroyed?

Oh, that was exactly what Atheos' vision for the New Left Renaissance™ was predicated upon, as the idiot himself pontificates upon back in 2008:

What the fuck is wrong with you? You're so stupid that when you can't win the current debate to have to go drudge up posts of mine from a year and a half ago? Really, you're just embarrassing yourself now. If you can't win the current debate, just concede and go one your way. Don't try to turn the debate into one I already backed out of.

With luck, enough people will suffer as a result of 12 years of trickle-down economics and deregulation, and someone will have the balls to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, that people reject those principles and all the principles of conservatism in general. It's unlikely, and probably impossible, but the alternative is much worse. Think of it this way: It's a question of a lot of suffering over the next 4 years, or even more suffering spread out over the next hundred. Conservatism needs to die, and this is the best way I can think of.

Amusing, no?

Are you retarded? Regardless of what the other components of my argument were (which I backed off of back in 2008), that quote came absolutely true. The economy crashed barely a month later, and there was a massive backlash against conservative politics. People were crying out for more regulation, the government stepping in and kicking out all the execs of the companies that caused it, and even CNN was talking about maybe it being time to nationalize the banks! Lots of stuff in my argument was a little out there, but this is not one of them. Unfortunately Obama and the democrats refused to do anything that Bush wouldn't have done, but there was a very good opportunity, probably the best we're going to get this generation.

[Darth Wong]

So if McCain were in power, Atheos figures that right-wing politics would be destroyed? Bullshit.

I haven't said anything like that in over a year and a half. What I said was

At least if McCain had been elected then the republicans would be forced to actually govern instead of saying no to everything. And maybe if Obama had lost the democrats would have learned a lesson about not being huge pussies like Obama was during the campaign.

Patrick Degan keeps insisting on bringing up ancient obsolete posts of mine because apparently he's not smart enough to debate me on my statements here and now.

So ... you figure that if the Republicans were in power, they would suddenly start doing a good job, unlike what they did from 2000 to 2008? And the Democrats, after losing, would not be "huge pussies" any more, when the real problem is not that they're "pussies" but that they're largely beholden to the same corporate interests as their foes? That's some powerful hallucinogenic compound you must be using.

As I said, if the Republicans were in power, they would be consolidating their theo-con policies throughout the entire bureaucracy, they would be spending money like mad, they would be blaming Democrats no matter how long they'd been in office, much of the country would completely fall for it, and the Democrats would go along with whatever they're doing because they would be portrayed as "anti-American" if they don't.

[Dominus Atheos]

Patrick Degan keeps insisting on bringing up ancient obsolete posts of mine because apparently he's not smart enough to debate me on my statements here and now.

No, Atheos, I bring up your past idiocies to demonstrate the context in which your current idiocies are based. Sorry if that's so inconvenient for you.

You have so far failed miserably to disprove my statement that I quoted to Darth Wong, so bring up those posts is just a giant red herring. You're just waving it around to distract everyone from the fact that you can't debate me on the statement I made in this thread.

[Patrick Degan]

What the fuck is wrong with you? You're so stupid that when you can't win the current debate to have to go drudge up posts of mine from a year and a half ago? Really, you're just embarrassing yourself now. If you can't win the current debate, just concede and go one your way. Don't try to turn the debate into one I already backed out of.

Empty blustering does not impress me, Mr. Atheos. I suggest you try to remember that and do stop whining over how butthurt you're getting over being reminded of your previous idiocies.

Are you retarded? Regardless of what the other components of my argument were (which I backed off of back in 2008), that quote came absolutely true. The economy crashed barely a month later, and there was a massive backlash against conservative politics. People were crying out for more regulation, the government stepping in and kicking out all the execs of the companies that caused it, and even CNN was talking about maybe it being time to nationalize the banks! Lots of stuff in my argument was a little out there, but this is not one of them. Unfortunately Obama and the democrats refused to do anything that Bush wouldn't have done, but there was a very good opportunity, probably the best we're going to get this generation.

But that was clearly NOT what you were arguing for back in 2008, and that was NOT what your premises were based upon. And you yourself opened the door to an examination of your own arguments by again trying to float the idiotic notion that it would have been better for McCain to have won so the "right people" would get the blame for the country crashing and burning —regardless of consequences. Now you try to retcon your own words so that they somehow didn't mean what you actually said and imagine that you will get away with it. Pathetic.

You have so far failed miserably to disprove my statement that I quoted to Darth Wong, so bring up those posts is just a giant red herring. You're just waving it around to distract everyone from the fact that you can't debate me on the statement I made in this thread.

Once more, I am not impressed by empty bluster. But do keep pretending that anybody other than yourself will be.

[Dominus Atheos]

So if McCain were in power, Atheos figures that right-wing politics would be destroyed? Bullshit.

I haven't said anything like that in over a year and a half. What I said was

At least if McCain had been elected then the republicans would be forced to actually govern instead of saying no to everything. And maybe if Obama had lost the democrats would have learned a lesson about not being huge pussies like Obama was during the campaign.

Patrick Degan keeps insisting on bringing up ancient obsolete posts of mine because apparently he's not smart enough to debate me on my statements here and now.

So ... you figure that if the Republicans were in power, they would suddenly start doing a good job, unlike what they did from 2000 to 2008? And the Democrats, after losing, would not be "huge pussies" any more, when the real problem is not that they're "pussies" but that they're largely beholden to the same corporate interests as their foes? That's some powerful hallucinogenic compound you must be using.

As I said, if the Republicans were in power, they would be consolidating their theo-con policies throughout the entire bureaucracy, they would be spending money like mad, they would be blaming Democrats no matter how long they'd been in office, much of the country would completely fall for it, and the Democrats would go along with whatever they're doing because they would be portrayed as "anti-American" if they don't.

Their corporate interests shouldn't have any baring on the way they keep rolling over for the republicans on every issue including social ones. Corporate interests didn't make them make the stimulus include more money worth of tax cuts (none of which were for big corporations) then actual stimulative spending. It certainly wasn't corporate interests that have caused the health care bill to be stalled for 9 months. Corporate interests are united behind this bill since it's a huge windfall for the health-care industry. Corporate interests don't account for Congress holding up almost 250 of Obama's nominees to things as banal as the ambassador to Portugal or a member of the National Transportation Safety Board.

You know what does account for that? The democrats being HUGE PUSSIES.

[Patrick Degan]

And to play with Atheos' main thesis for just a bit, this HuffPo op/ed piece examines the sort of America and world we might have been facing in the event of a McCain/Barbie victory back in 2008. Speculation, but the bases for it derive from the personality of the would-be president and the sort of advisers surrounding him during the campaign:

A year ago, Obama supporters were so happy George Bush and Dick Cheney were leaving office that many discounted the mess the Obama was about to inherit. (The day after the election, the Onion trumpeted Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job.) Most Democrats were aware the US economy was in trouble - Lehman Brothers had gone into bankruptcy two months before the election, causing a global financial panic. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration didn't announce that the US was in recession until December 1st and many Americans didn't fully understand how bad the economy was until after the holidays were over.

The onset of the most significant US economic downturn since 1929 is a good reason for Americans to be depressed. Nonetheless, things would be a lot worse if John McCain had been elected President on November 4, 2008.

During the Presidential campaign McCain admitted economics wasn't his strong suit. His primary economic adviser was former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, who probably would be Treasury Secretary if the Republicans had won the presidential election. Gramm is the personification of conservative free-market ideology. In July of 2008, Gramm opined the US was in a "mental recession" and complained we had "become a nation of whiners."

If McCain had been elected President, there would have been no economic stimulus package. Senator McCain voted against the package, noting "We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that there'll be no new taxes." President McCain wouldn't have funded infrastructure development or provided funds for education, healthcare, or struggling workers and homeowners. His response would have been grossly inadequate.

But remember, readers, it is Mr. Atheos' own argument —from this very thread— that:

As someone further up said, very little has changed since Bush left office. Almost no significant reforms have taken place, so everything is just as broken now as it was before Obama took office.

To continue:

The American economy showed growth last quarter, primarily due to the Obama stimulus package (plus "cash for clunkers," another program that wouldn't have been initiated by a McCain Administration). If McCain had been elected President the recession would have mirrored The Great Depression: unemployment would be in the 15-20 percent range and there would be far more bank and business failures. We'd be comparing McCain to Herbert Hoover.

Besides screwing up the economy, President McCain would have had no domestic agenda except for cutting taxes. His health care plan was tax rebates. He wouldn't be pushing legislation to regulate the financial industry or reduce harmful emissions. Under the leadership of Vice President Palin he'd be promoting a conservative social agenda: We aren't providing jobs but we've made it more difficult to get an abortion.

There'd be a huge difference in foreign policy. Many Democrats criticize Obama for Afghanistan, where Obama is carefully considering options to get us out of the mess Bush and Cheney created. McCain believes pondering a tough decision to be a sign of weakness. President McCain would have dispatched all the troops that Petraeus and McChrystal wanted.

Nonetheless, the biggest foreign policy differences between McCain and Obama likely would have been their handling of the June 2009 Iran Presidential elections widely regarded as fraudulent and a setback for pro-democracy forces within Iran. At the time, McCain criticized Obama saying the US should do more to support the Iranian people, "I hope we will act."

John McCain is cantankerous and impulsive, someone who has a reputation for having a short fuse. What would President McCain have done about Iran? (Perhaps bolstered by a Secretary of State Joe Lieberman.) At the least he would have pulled back diplomatically - the high-level talks about Iran's nuclear program wouldn't have happened. But it's more likely the bellicose McCain would have pulled a page from the Bush/Cheney playbook and taken military action, such as a blockade of Iranian oil shipments on the Persian Gulf, bombing suspected Iranian weapons labs, or worse.

By now, President McCain would have made an enormous foreign policy blunder. That would have made the situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East far more difficult than it is today. Outside the US, Obama has gotten kudos for his renewed emphasis on diplomacy and multilateralism; President McCain would be regarded as worse than Bush, forcing the US into paranoid isolation.

But remember, readers, according to Mr. Atheos, everything is "just as broken" under Obama as it was before he took office, and it would have been preferable for McCain to have won so the "right" people would be getting the full blame for the trainwreck. That it would have been a far worse trainwreck with McCain and Yukon Barbie at the controls, however, seems not to have ever occurred to him.