iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

sneakysis's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Oct 2, 2011 at 11:39:59 in Politics

“So... you advocate redistribution of wealth? I wasn't aware that libertarians were into that sort of thing.

The money you're talking about wasn't "stolen". That's one "beauty" of unregulated markets: really shady stuff is totally okay.”
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Oct 1, 2011 at 22:29:08 in Politics

“Ron Paul was doing what he always does, railing against various government institutions that he doesn't like on principle, regardless of what they do. But let's get specific. He was running around saying that Fanny May and Freddie Mac were distorting the housing market. In fact, those two institutions were extremely conservative relative to other mortgage lenders, and only entered the sub-prime market well after it had become unsustainably large. The housing bubble, like other bubbles, was produced by _unregulated capital flows_.

I don't know why people believe the lie that FM&FM were behind the housing bubble. Maybe they just want to preserve their obviously wrong view that The Market Is Never Wrong, or something.

I have a hard time believing you can cite me ANY Keynsian economist who was saying "there is no housing bubble". Although a lot of Austrian-school economists were saying it is impossible for there to be a housing bubble, because bubbles are impossible, because markets are efficient, and all that...”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 01:11:10

“I agree with Obama administration going after the banks and others who caused this mess
( Though I think it is just an act,to pacify folks0 but..if real they should TAKE from those who stole and caused the crisis..and use that money to somehow buy and GIVE the houses to those affected.. NOT with strings attatched..free and clear. Otherwise we will have millions living in cardboard boxes or hotels ..whatever..it's a MESS..they should have listened to Paul in the first place..but that's done with.
Prosecute and take what was stolen..and if it is the fed reserve or s&P or both at fault..take it from THEM”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 01:05:25

“That was sold to voters as a compassionate gesture to the poor and beneficial to society as a whole. After all, how could giving more Americans an ownership stake in society be bad? The combined policies of loose credit and government backing increased the demand for housing and drove prices sky high. When the housing market heated up to the breaking point everything came crashing down. Those suddenly facing foreclosure saw the reality of government compassion. Truly, when government offers you a gift, you should eye it with great suspicion.

Another tragedy is that many job seekers are now tethered to their locations because of upside down loan obligations. It takes a lot of effort with their bank and damage to their credit scores to figure out how to get out and move to a place where there are jobs. Will the government now be seeking ways to subsidize renters in some way because of this lack of mobility? Some think so.

My hope is that for the long term stability and health of the economy, the government will extricate itself from the market altogether and let it normalize. My fear is that in its usual misguided efforts at solving one crisis, it will create a thousand others.

1. Ron Paul: The Fed Is Stealing the People’s Money by Ron Paul

stop defending the crooks and listen to Ron Paul.. Whom BernieSanders&otherLiberals sayis a good and HONEST man

( mods..I copy all comments ..Nocensoring?)”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 00:58:32

“Fannie and Freddie, and thus the taxpayer, has an alarming $5 trillion exposure to the mortgage market. To some, spreading out this risk might seem tempting, and a smart thing to do. But the fact remains that if a bank expects to lose money on a loan, so will the taxpayers. Playing around with structures and definitions will still not deal with the root problem – government meddling in the housing market, playing fast and loose with our tax dollars, and central planning by the Federal Reserve.

Banks have complex risk assessment strategies in place that help them forecast if a particular loan will make them any money or not. If they expect to make money, they will approve the loan. If they have doubts, sometimes they will ask for a co-signer to improve their odds. You might do this willingly for a friend or a relative if you didn’t mind losing some money on their behalf, but current government policies essentially force taxpayers to become cosigners for risky borrowers that are complete strangers, who the banks have already determined to be bad risks. Taxpayers have no choice in the matter because politicians decided a few decades ago that dangling homeownership in front of more people seemed like a good way to garner votes.”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 00:54:28

“Finally, HR 3221 increases the federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raising of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee-jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 00:53:42

“prt2
HR 3221 also takes another troubling step toward the creation of surveillance state by creating a Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. This federal database will contain personal information about anyone wishing to work as a "loan originator." "Loan originator" is defined broadly as anyone who "takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain." According to some analysts, this definition is so broad as to cover part-time clerks and real estate agents who receive even minimal compensation from "originators." Additionally, this database forced on industry will be funded by fees paid to the federal banking agencies, yet another costly burden to the American taxpayers.

Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the federal government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the Fourth Amendment support this new threat to privacy.”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 00:51:56

“sorryIpastedinthewrongonebefore..ThisisFrom08HeDidWarnThem

"For several years, followers of the Austrian school of economics have warned that unless Congress moved to end the implicit government guarantee of FannieMaeandFreddieMac, and took other steps to disengage the US Government from the housing market, America would face a crisis in housing. This crisis would force Congress to choose between authorizing a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and other measures increasing government's involvement in housing, or restoring a free-market in housing by ending government support for Fannie and Freddie and repealing all laws that interfere in housing. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the recent near-collapse in investor support for Fannie and Freddie has proven my fellow Austrians correct. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, instead of ending the prior interventions in the housing market that are responsible for the current crisis, Congress is increasing the level of government intervention in the housing market. This is the equivalent of giving a drug addict another fix, which will only make the necessary withdrawal more painful.

The provision giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check to purchase Fannie and Freddie stock not only makes the implicit government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie explicit, it represents another unconstitutional delegation of Congress' Constitutional authority to control the allocation of taxpayer dollars. While the Treasury Secretary has to file a report with Congress, the lack of any effective standards for the expenditure of funds makes it impossible for Congress to perform effective oversight on Treasury's expenditures.
prt 1”

Binea on Oct 2, 2011 at 00:45:56

“" The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed’s negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.

More importantly, the Fed’s funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury’s supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms."”
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 14:19:52 in Politics

“If I may interpret, Binea proposes:

1. Governments with socialized health care systems take obese kids away from parents.
2. Governments with socialized health care systems mandate that girls get weakly vetted, potentially dangerous vaccines.

I think you'll find no evidence whatever for such a connection, causal or otherwise.”
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 14:17:33 in Politics

“All commodity-backed currencies, far from being "sound" in any normal sense of the word, function in the same way as a gold standard currency, and so have all of the same problems that a gold standard has.

A gold standard does not stop inflation from occurring. Its value relative to other commodities varies, and in any case people are pulling more of it out of the ground all of the time.”
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 14:11:41 in Politics

“The _model_, which tries to describe what's going on in the markets, has worked _excellently_ for predicting what's happened since the fall 2007 downturn.

Keynsian _policies_ haven't been tried, so I don't know what you think you're smugly implying.”

Binea on Sep 30, 2011 at 20:07:14

“uh..I'd like to remind you that Ron Paul believes in the Austrian theory..and he correctly predicted EVERYTHING the economy would do,including in the rest of the world and including Fanny and Freddy..and while he ran around like chicken little yelling
The SKY IS FALLING !! THE SKY IS FALLING !!
all you Keyensians called him nutz or wrong or over reacting
it's all online to see..HE was right..you all were Wrong..
so stop listening to bernake and gotner and others like them..try listening to the one who has been RIGHT all along”
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Sep 29, 2011 at 17:05:19 in Politics

“Since Paul advocates return to the gold standard, I'm not sure why I should believe he has ANY "knowledge... in economics".”

jasonxe on Sep 29, 2011 at 18:04:52

“Because the keynesian economic model has worked out greatly so far.....”

timefor liberty on Sep 29, 2011 at 17:55:44

“He actually advocates competing currencies -- ending legal tender laws and capital gains taxes on metals.

We would be far better off with sound currency. It's inflation that finances endless war and profligate spending, while screwing the little guy.”

Binea on Sep 29, 2011 at 17:38:30

“Ron Paul is for the Gold standard yes,but also Silver and any commodity backed dollar.
The government reallly does print up monopoly money,it is not backed by anything..why do you think we are in such a mess

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Commented Sep 29, 2011 at 17:01:35 in Politics

“"if socialized gov feels they have the right to take obese kids from parents and mandate girls to get a shot that big Pharma probably pay's the various associatio­ns to say is "safe" yet we don't know the long term effects of"

wut”

Binea on Sep 29, 2011 at 17:48:00

“hmm must have typed that when pain meds kicked in lol ( I've been recouping from surgeories)
Google " Obese children taken from family" in UK and in Scotland ..probably other places in europe,and they are "discussing" doing it here too. They make a valid arguement about Obese kids being at risk..but they Never worried about it so much that they wanted to take them from their families until Socialized med came along ( recently here)
I do not think they will stop at that..reading other peoples comments on huff post they believe that they should control adults as well as children. we see it already starting with hmm Bloombergs banning of salt ( or attempted ban) and discussions of fat kids..
we see it with these mandated shots for little girls ( we do NOT know the long term affects of it..what if in 20 years we find out it sterilized half of them or caused some other problem ? ) and they haven't told people yet about the kids in other countries that Died from it ( kids with pre existing health issues..like MY daughter)
we all learned about how Perry was lobbied by Merrick to mandate those shot's in his state..what makes you think that they didn't also pay off "pediatrics assosication" and others to claim it was "safe" ?
I do not trust government as it is now..they are corrupt..you shouldn't eigther..especially when they want to "mandate" something”

timefor liberty on Sep 29, 2011 at 17:43:43

“If I may interpret, Binea opposes:

1. Government taking obese kids away from parents.
2. Government mandating that girls get weakly vetted, potentially dangerous vaccines”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 25, 2011 at 14:21:58 in Politics

“Your example of DADT doesn't work. [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/conservatives-shift-favor-openly-gay-service-members.aspx ] Signing stuff the extra-crazy right doesn't like, or that is, in fact, good legislation, is NOT the same as being (reliably) supportive of progressive goals. Get back to me when Obama signs federal gay-marriage legislation. Or does away with (or even tries to do away with) the NSA domestic-spying program. Oh wait.

"How did that work out in 2010?"

How did what work out? Challenging Mr. Obama in a primary? You seem to believe that the 2010 election cycle was due to a lack of progressive activism. I'd be interested in hearing how that works, instead of the much more plausible mechanism of the-voters-were-pissed-off-and-wanted-to-vote-the-bums-out.

I agree with you that we should be getting into the streets and participating in direct action political activism. However, without a credible threat that a voting constituency will bolt a candidate, the candidate has no reason to do more than pay lip service to that constituency's agenda. The President and his political team are palpably not interested in pleasing the left, to say the least (see also comments about the "Professional Left" inter alia). To agree, now, over a year before the election, that you will vote for Obama is to agree that whatever protest you mount can safely be ignored.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 21, 2011 at 08:03:04 in Politics

“Oh, and Obama remains a proven signiature for center-right legislation. To claim, say, the ACA is "progressive" is laughable.”

sneakysis on Sep 25, 2011 at 14:21:58

“Your example of DADT doesn't work. [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/conservatives-shift-favor-openly-gay-service-members.aspx ] Signing stuff the extra-crazy right doesn't like, or that is, in fact, good legislation, is NOT the same as being (reliably) supportive of progressive goals. Get back to me when Obama signs federal gay-marriage legislation. Or does away with (or even tries to do away with) the NSA domestic-spying program. Oh wait.

"How did that work out in 2010?"

How did what work out? Challenging Mr. Obama in a primary? You seem to believe that the 2010 election cycle was due to a lack of progressive activism. I'd be interested in hearing how that works, instead of the much more plausible mechanism of the-voters-were-pissed-off-and-wanted-to-vote-the-bums-out.

I agree with you that we should be getting into the streets and participating in direct action political activism. However, without a credible threat that a voting constituency will bolt a candidate, the candidate has no reason to do more than pay lip service to that constituency's agenda. The President and his political team are palpably not interested in pleasing the left, to say the least (see also comments about the "Professional Left" inter alia). To agree, now, over a year before the election, that you will vote for Obama is to agree that whatever protest you mount can safely be ignored.”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 22, 2011 at 05:24:22

“Obama has signed a ton of progressive legislation since gaining office. The most visable, of course, was the repeal of DADT, but there have been many many others.

Yes, they're not all the big moves we need to progress in a big way, but the Repubs have hampered every move. And NONE of those pieces of progressive legislation, would have passed a Repub President's desk. And you want to risk sending even MORE Repubs to DC? Send a Perry? A Bachmann? A Romney to the WH?

How did that work out in 2010?

Obama IS a proven signature for progressive legislation. So would be a Bernie Sanders or a Kucinich. Sadly, they don't stand a chance of winning, even if they decided to run.

We have to KEEP that signature in the WH, be it Obama or a truly viable progressive alternative.

I will support and vote for a viable progressive alternative. I will NOT vote, either directly or indirectly, to send a Repub to the WH.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 21, 2011 at 07:59:49 in Politics

“As long as you continue to view all politics as a binary proposition in which the only goals are located in the next election cycle, you will continue to view all politics as a binary proposition in which the only goals are located in the next election cycle.

Or in other words, the fact that you think "helping to elect Repubs" is what I'm advocating is exactly indicative of why your approach does not serve progressive goals, but rather serves to subordinate progressive activism to Democratic Party goals.”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 22, 2011 at 05:08:02

“You continue to ignore the point I've made in every reply I've given to you.
I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO VOTE FOR A PRIMARY OR THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE, IF THAT CANDIDATE CAN BEAT THE REPUB.

What you have not addressed, is my call to get into the streets and highly active, to PUSH the Dems and Obama towards our shared progressive goals.

There are some progressives marching and protesting (Wisconsin's protesters should be every progressive's template for DC), but not nearly enough.
The French get it. The Brits get it. The Lybians get it. The Egyptians get it.
American progressives? Not so much. We eat our own, and make it easy for the Right wing attack-dogs.

You can't just sit at home and vote pie-in-the-sky anti-Obama whomever, and throw away the best chance we have of actually progressing.

Again. I share your disappointment in Obama, but I will not allow my vote to put someone infinintely worse in office. And I'm not going to let Obama off the hook. Let's go out and (as FDR demanded of the progressives of his day) MAKE HIM DO IT.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 15, 2011 at 18:57:22 in Politics

“Good, I'm glad we agree that fear is driving your behavior.

"There is NO third party candidate."

I don't think we need to go to third parties IF we can get Dem primaries. But let's suppose we can't — then of course one can support a third party based on its platform. Or one can name a person and try to get them on one or another party ticket.

"...any name you produce can't just be your dream ticket."

Of course not. But there is a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable".

"We lost in 2000 for want of a handful of voters who went for Nader."

No. No, no, no. The election of 2000 was decided by a 5-4 vote.

"Helping to vote in the very Party that makes no bones about the destructio­n of progressiv­e ideals, is a VERY BAD LONG TERM STRATEGY."

The last decade was NOT a decade in which progressives were strongly pushing to get their candidates into the general election. So I don't know why you would think it tells us much about the long-term prospects of the strategy of FORCING CANDIDATES TO EARN OUR VOTES.

(Some people get all dizzy about "electability" with regard to some imaginary "centrist" "independent". Tom Friedman doesn't own any Electoral College votes, last I checked, and self-identified independents vote with strong Party preferences nonetheless. Progressives are not "helping" Republicans any more than the Constitution Party "helps" Democrats.)”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 15, 2011 at 20:17:54

“"Good, I'm glad we agree that fear is driving your behavior."

Any progressive, NOT afraid of a Tea Party President (which seems to be the only type of Repub electable this time), is being terribly naive about how they're looking at this upcoming election.

"No. No, no, no. The election of 2000 was decided by a 5-4 vote."

Please. That vote would have been unnecessary, had Gore received those Nader votes. Then progressives would have had a President who believes in green tech and global warming, instead of the cowboy warmonger we ended up with.

You are not going to push Dems left, by helping to elect Repubs. That didn't work in 2000. It didn't work in 2010, and it won't work in 2012. It just makes things worse.

Wisconsin. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. New Jersey. Look at the damage staying home in November did to those states, and, with a Tea Party House, what it's doing to further destroy this nation.

I'll repeat: If progressives want to PUSH Dems left, they have to keep those Dems in office, and then get into the streets like the Europeans do.

You've got a year to think about it. If a magic electable candidate challenges Obama, I'll be there with you. Sans that, Obama remains a PROVEN signature for progressive legislation. Progressives give that up at their peril.

Let's concentrate on a Blue Congress/WH, coupled with in the streets action. The PUSH that will actually work.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 12, 2011 at 14:37:44 in Politics

“See but here's exactly the difference. You're so afraid that Perry, or Romney, or whoever, will win the White House that you don't want to throw your support behind anybody else. It doesn't matter who I specify — your response would inevitably be "that person can't win". And this is the lesson you refuse to learn from the conservative movement: it's not about the short term, it's about the long haul. If we aren't willing to force the Dems to move left, they won't — but that is exactly what your "strategy" produces. By contrast, I don't find it acceptable to continue to elect slightly-less-bad options in perpetuity.”
Was There an Alternative?

Was There an Alternative?

Commented Sep 10, 2011 at 00:03:48 in Politics

“What exactly oversight is there? Please do cite portions of the U.S. Code/UMJ and/or name the relevant congressional committees.

On a related note, EVEN IF there is some body with formal "oversight" outside the executive branch, you can be sure they are not interested in exercising it.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 6, 2011 at 20:50:38 in Politics

“The Tea Party is successful because (inter alia) they ARE WILLING TO PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO DON'T MEET IDEOLOGICAL RIGOR. Then, less extreme repubs move right, i.e. toward Tea Party positions, to avoid/defeat such challenges; sometimes, the Tea Party candidate wins; and all is well in winger-land.

Your claim about not backing up leadership is very similar to a Republican booster saying “Oh please, farther-right-than-me conservatives, don't abandon our Republican Leadership over some silly disagreement with them such as that you don't like hardly anything they've done in the last few years, because if you do... horror of horrors, Dems might win!!1!OHNOES!!11!””
Was There an Alternative?

Was There an Alternative?

Commented Sep 6, 2011 at 20:20:52 in Politics

“The gummint said it to the teevee.”

Tom Horne on Sep 6, 2011 at 22:06:15

“Corporations, big oil and the weapons makers told it to the government.”
Was There an Alternative?

Was There an Alternative?

Commented Sep 6, 2011 at 20:20:09 in Politics

“What does "no choice" even mean to you? The "American people" also demand that we close the budget deficit by taxing millionaires, and you don't hear a lot of rushing to get that done. And I notice you seem to have left out the possibility of capturing Bin Laden alive.”
Was There an Alternative?

Was There an Alternative?

Commented Sep 6, 2011 at 20:16:24 in Politics

“Who counts as a "terrorist" for assassination is determined solely by the executive — on whatever grounds it likes, or none at all. So I take it you will agree that the POTUS, whoever that happens to be, should have the power to kill anyone (for any reason)?”

wonderinbear on Sep 6, 2011 at 23:22:04

“In war unless you surrender then you are a potential target. When someone is trying to kill our soldiers we don't expect our soldiers to ask the enemy if they are sure they want to kill us before dispatching them. Your argument supposes that Osama and his kind want to negotiate or are operating with Western Values, and thus fails.”

2083 on Sep 6, 2011 at 22:07:52

“If you think that's the only oversight, you are living in a dreamworld.”
huffingtonpost entry

Dominionism Is Left-Wing Birtherism

Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 07:02:51 in Politics

“The thing I like about the author's false equivalence is that he doesn't bother to even TRY to present contrary evidence.

Let's remember that there's a difference between news reporting that many people are questioning the truth of X, and news reporting that Y is true.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 06:45:15 in Politics

“I like the idea of a Louis C.K. presidency ;)”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 7, 2011 at 04:33:27

“"The Tea Party is successful because (inter alia) they ARE WILLING TO PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO DON'T MEET IDEOLOGICA­L RIGOR.

Your claim about not backing up leadership is very similar to a Republican booster saying “Oh please, farther-ri­ght-than-m­e conservati­ves, don't abandon our Republican Leadership over some silly disagreeme­nt with them such as that you don't like hardly anything they've done in the last few years, because if you do... horror of horrors, Dems might win!!1!OHN­OES!!11!” "

There was no reply icon remaining on this reply to me later on Steven's blog, so I came to this previous comment of yours to answer. And it's apropos, I think.

Since 2009, I've been one of Obama's biggest critics, but I'm not going to hand the WH to a Tea Party candidate.
I admire the fact that the Tea Party takes ACTION. Terrible action to be sure, but they show how democracy works, even if in a distorted way.
You go on about a primary candidacy, but offer only Louis C.K. as your candidate? Joke or not, THAT'S the reality of where we stand. Obama, or Tea Bagger. Choose well, Grasshopper.”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 06:42:56 in Politics

“Right, so I'll refer you to my reply to your reply to the post immediately below, re: risk vs. reward. Until you can get off the broken record tip, there's no point in further engaging you.”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 3, 2011 at 06:49:26

“Okay, you have no answer to my (actually Steven's) question, so you prefer to call it a "broken record."

You won't be able to just dodge questions you don't like your entire life, you know...”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 06:18:44 in Politics

“I have heard of these things, I think called third parties? Perhaps one of them will field a candidate.

Oh, and before you snark: the question is not "who will it be?" but "why do you fear?" Or in other words, unless you're willing to run a risk of getting the evil-er of two evils, you're not going to get anything but two worst options to choose from.”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 3, 2011 at 06:29:02

“"I have heard of these things, I think called third parties? Perhaps one of them will field a candidate."

Fine. I'm all for it, but they MUST be able to beat the Repub candidate, whomever that may be.

So who is it, sneakysis?”
Well...?

Well...?

Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 06:14:03 in Politics

“Yes, we should all declare that we will vote for Obama in 2012. That way he will have no reason to pay attention to the progressive constituency. We'll surely get what we want then. Good idea.”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 12, 2011 at 19:26:23

“"See but here's exactly the difference­. You're so afraid that Perry, or Romney, or whoever, will win the White House that you don't want to throw your support behind anybody else. It doesn't matter who I specify — your response would inevitably be "that person can't win"."

You're right. I AM afraid of Romney/Perry/Bachman etal...

But you are wrong when you say I'm afraid to throw my support behind a third party candidate. One problem. There is NO third party candidate. That's why you won't produce a name, because no name is in play.

And any name you produce can't just be your dream ticket. We all have our dream tickets. Get some progressive who can actually beat a Repub, and you'll have millions, me included, joining in to help elect that person.

We lost in 2000 for want of a handful of voters who went for Nader. Just look at the damage helping elect Bush did to the progressive movement.

There's effed up, and there's Republican and effed up.

If you want to "force" the Dems to the Left, then the progs have to get into the streets like they do in Europe. You will never force the Repubs to do anything. The Dems will vote prog when pushed.

Helping to vote in the very Party that makes no bones about the destruction of progressive ideals, is a VERY BAD LONG TERM STRATEGY. It gave us the last ten years. Want more?”

The Smartest Monkees on Sep 3, 2011 at 06:25:17

“"Well, then, fine. So who will it be?" - Steven Weber

I hear Rick Perry and Bachmann are just wild about the progressive agenda.
We'll have a friend in the White House, if one of them gets elected...

Who ya got, sneakysis? Seriously, as a progressive disappointed in Obama, I'd like to know.”
huffingtonpost entry

Time for President Obama to Embrace His Debt Commission -- If It Is Not Too Late

Commented Apr 29, 2011 at 08:54:09 in Politics

“So basically, we should ignore all components of the ACA and other proposals (such as means-testing) that are exactly aimed at NOT allowing unchecked medical spending, because that would undermine a key premise of your argument.”
huffingtonpost entry

The Heavy Hand of Inflation Has Descended. What Next?

Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 14:38:56 in Politics

““ The last we heard from Ben Bernanke a few months ago was that inflation was low. Yeah, right, Ben.”

There is a difference between headline inflation, which is wildly variable from quarter to quarter due to the high volatility of commodity prices, and core inflation, which excludes those volatile prices. The reason to pay attention to core inflation is that it gives you a better picture of overall price levels in the economy by tracking prices that are not easy to change, and which therefore change in the direction of greatest pressure. Bernanke sensibly pays attention to core inflation; core inflation continues to be very low.”
huffingtonpost entry

A Reasonable Argument for God's Existence

Commented Mar 7, 2011 at 17:41:43 in Religion

““Everyone agrees to the appearance of design.”

No, they don't.

“If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute...”

First, there is a difference between finding possible naturalistic mechanisms by which life might have arisen (which we close to having) and finding which of those possible mechanisms was the actual one (which might be impossible because time travel would be required).

But second, and more important, the author's thorough misunderstanding of the role of "chance" undermines his credibility. "It is unlikely" is not the same as "It couldn't have happened", and "we aren't certain how it happened" doesn't imply "it's unlikely".

“I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.”

Posit, v: assume as fact, put forward as a basis of argument. 'Nuff said.”
next
1 - 25