epotruchyeahright

Actually, they have HTML tags for what you wrote now:

"< sarc >blah blah blah< /sarc >" posted 07/08/2008 at 19:43:45

I highly doubt that Israelis are afraid of terrorism. No one country has had the gonads to do what they've done to combat terrorism -- methodically and confidently. posted 06/27/2008 at 11:50:47

Well written, TRex86! I would have added "desperate economic interests" as something we have in the Middle East. Perhaps you tie that to "imperial pretensions" since with imperial power comes control over the economy and natural resources. posted 06/27/2008 at 11:40:53

Loved the analysis, hated the solution.
Drill offshore and in Alaska, which will provide revenue to finance development of alternative energy sources, but will also damage the very environment we're trying to protect by developing alternative energy sources. Brilliant!
A poster also suggested a $200/ton of CO2 tax per vehicle. Revenue neutral? It puts $4,500 back into consumers' pockets, but not before they've spent $750/mo. paying the tax. Brilliant!
No, I think the real solution to creating an equity economy -- which, by the way, means we save more than we spend -- has to start with the consumer. We are trillions in debt because we spend too much, way beyond our means. Tearing up the credit cards and going cash-only is one way, but that will take a long time. To hasten the process along, I was all for taxing consumption. I hate Huckabee, but the Fair Tax Plan, properly managed, would create enough incentive to create smart consumption as opposed to reckless consumption. posted 06/18/2008 at 18:56:05

The reason why the Clinton tax increases worked so well is because, at the same time, he reduced the size of the federal government and brought the budget under control. There were some reduction in spending as a result. Look at the arc of the federal debt ceiling during the 1990s and you can see that the upward trend slowed in that time.
Bush's tax cuts are not working for two reasons: 1) war; and 2) uncontrolled spending, by both parties. posted 06/18/2008 at 18:45:24

Or the Warden of Alcatraz in Murder in the First. posted 06/17/2008 at 17:54:13

That's hilarious. posted 06/17/2008 at 17:52:53

I haven't seen the film despite the fact that I have Tivo. But I remember how deflated and nauseous I felt after the SCOTUS ruled for Bush/Cheney. I always knew that the election had been stolen. No way Pat Buchanan would have had as many votes in south Florida, where there is a large Jewish population who are disgusted by his racism.

Still I'm not sure I agree that the GOP is working on a contingency plan to rig the election again for McCain to win. I believe that we haven't yet begun to see how low they'll go to discredit Obama -- pay attention to the new "Marxist" argument recently flying around -- and I know that this will be one bloody contest.

My hope, however, is that some of the voters who went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, who are against the war, disillusioned with what happened to their jobs/homes/buying power/gas bills, and looking for something different (even if just in a generic sense) will get past that horrible rhetoric and take a serious look at Obama.

Obama has a long way to go and his candidacy will bring racism to new heights, especially because it makes for such juicy news copy. But I think that in the end, the people will win out this time. posted 06/09/2008 at 18:50:51

Making the Powerful Shit Themselves posted 06/09/2008 at 14:14:23

Well said, Dr. Chopra, and I completely agree. In truth, it is out intentions that manifest reality in the material world, as you yourself have written. This should not be confused with willfulness, which contains a deep reserve of selfishness in the pursuit of one's goals in life. The Dalai Lama really does live a Buddhist's life. He not only mouths the words about non-violence and peace, he exemplifies it. The violent reactions of his people to five decades of brutal Chinese rule are explainable, though not defensible if one is talking about Buddhism. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:51:09

Impeachment will never happen, no matter what. Once Bush and Cheney leave, it would be political masturbation, nothing else. Having them fade away quietly and completely would be the best we can hope for. We can also imagine a slow painful death in obscurity a la Reagan, but that would be crass and, well, oddly satisfying. posted 04/02/2008 at 01:37:31

Great analysis by this officer! It shows just how complex the problem is. Some would say, "Well, yeah, especially now since we went in and f&cked everything up." But the truth is, our presence there has little effect on the underlying hatreds going back centuries. Forget American invaders, the Shia extremists believe the Sunnis to be infidels -- no better than us -- deserving of death. And vice versa. The only security one can have in Iraq is at the point of a gun. This was made all too clear as Maliki failed to secure Basra. It took representatives of a government faction which had its own militia to deflate the situation. And al Sadr only made his decision after Mullahs in Iran and Iraq weighed in. The government of America's choice has no militia of its own, just a ragtag group of poorly trained people without enough popular support to maintain order. Hell, many of them deserted last week and joined the other side!

In fairness, it's pointless now to jump on Bush's reasons for going in. We're in, and getting out should now be our objective. The officer writes that we should direct our efforts at stopping the most undesirable outcomes. But what outcome isn't undesirable? As he writes, it's going to blow up into sectarian violence no matter what. The Shia will take control, now or in 10 years. And I don't think the American people want responsibility for 100 years of "steam control." posted 04/01/2008 at 19:35:53

Sorry, but your post reads like an admonishment from a PC mommy. "It's not OK" is something my wife says to my two boys when they misbehave.

And haven't we seen an Obama staffer utter a couple of negative things as well? posted 03/31/2008 at 13:43:09

Ignore the evangelicals at your personal peril. They are the rising tide of the oncoming campaign to create a theocracy in America. I trust I am not alone in saying that the Christianist tide will have to pry the Constitution from my cold, dead fingers. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:09:08

Wrong! The infidelity was private, Bill's lying was not. JFK screwed around on his wife, as did many other presidents, senators, congressmen, etc. Their sex lives are not for public consumption, unless the act itself -- or a cover up about it -- are illegal. This is why Spitzer was wrong, and it's why Patterson's admission of it now is so cool. He took it away from his opponents so it's no longer a weapon.

It's not the wrongdoing that brings you down, it's the cover up. posted 03/26/2008 at 01:58:05

pupbayer has it right. The whole Lewinsky matter is private, private, private! That Bill Clinton lied to Congress about it was another matter, and he paid the price for it.

Chelsea's a winner in my opinion. posted 03/26/2008 at 01:55:31

Indigent = very poor

Indignant is the word you're looking for, Kendra. posted 03/26/2008 at 01:53:38

Your assessment of her attitude is about as off the mark as anything I've recently seen, and that's saying a lot.
There is no way that Ms. Clinton was being rude. In fact, she handled herself maturely, professionally, and treated the questioner with all the respect he/she deserved. In truth, the questioner had no business asking the question. I'm sure lots of people think Hillary's credibility is in question right now given the Bosnia situation (including myself), but Chelsea Clinton is not her mother, and she doesn't have to answer that question. posted 03/26/2008 at 01:52:55

Amazing. As crude as these guys are sometimes, they truly are doing their best to find some good in an extremely bad situation. The question of "why are we here?" is a rare one for these guys, because they know why. They're Army, they have a job to do and they do it. There's no time to question why they are in Iraq, because they've got to keep sharp to avoid being killed or to prevent their buddies from being killed. All they really want is to get home; they know they're in hell, but what do they do? Drop their weapon and refuse to fight? Bang! He's dead.
It's the same with the country's reason for being there. At this point, does it really matter anymore? We're there, we've created one hell of a mess, and before we leave we have to make sure that the mess gets as cleaned up as it can be. I certainly don't advocate a 100 year war, or even a 10 year war, but there's no way it's going to end in seven months when the next president is elected. posted 03/25/2008 at 14:48:00

As Radiohead proved, selling the songs isn't where one really makes money. The royalty income isn't what it used to be. Getting songs on TV shows and in movies pays very well, but the real money is in touring. The artist above who sold 500,000 copies in five months has to have a big buzz already despite not being signed. Maybe it was on YouTube or some other way. But when that artist hits the road and plays dates in good venues, the share of the ticket price, plus merchandising can make him/her millions.
My cousin was a fairly successful producer/songwriter who had some good credits to his name. He just shut down his home-based recording studio because no one was booking it anymore. Anyone can go down to a decent music retailer (or go online) and buy good digital recording gear and a high-end Mac. He's now working as a foley recordist for the film industry. Interesting work, but about as boring as one can get if your real love is making music. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:21:23

You imply that this democratization cheapens music, since one would have to wade through too much crap before finding that one hidden treasure. It was better when there were the impresarios to tell us what was good, is that right? As a former singer/songwriter, I know that "getting signed" had less to do with music than with money. In the 1980s, even before labels noticed you, club bookers wanted to hear your demo to see if you fit the club's vibe, then they wanted to see how many people would pay to see you and buy drinks (unlimited guest lists were cool because it was all about the drinks). Then, if labels saw that you had a large following and got good local press, then they would solicit a demo. Typically you paid your own money to record one in a professional studio. Then more showcases in the better clubs to see who would pay money to see you, plus college radio, etc.
Nearly as important was how well you could hang with the endless party vibe of the biz. If you weren't willing to party on that level, they didn't want you around. I'm not making this up; I lived it.
To me, having the internet to take away the elitism, and to level the playing field, is an awesome change. I just wish I was still writing songs (and was 20 years younger) to really take advantage of it. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:16:06

Obama has already come around, bruce9432, as has anyone with any sense. Immediate withdrawal, while it doesn't signal "retreat" or "defeat" as Bush so often says, certainly signals that we are using politics and public opinion to sway our military decisions. This would be an awful way to conduct military operations of any kind, no matter how ill-advised it might have been at the outset.

Withdrawal of such a massive force, including personnel and equipment, would have to be phased, well secured, and (sadly) ultimately reversible should conditions on the ground mandate it.

Personally, I don't think Petraeus or any of the on-the-ground commanders would alter their opinions of how to proceed with this military campaign dependent on who occupies the White House or runs Congress. Given Obama's propensity toward transparency, I am hopeful that he will enroll his commanders to be transparent and to hold nothing back, from the Joint Chiefs down to the commissioned officers in theater. posted 03/24/2008 at 12:47:34

Singha, you wrote: Our candidates are running for office and not PLAYING attention while our country goes down the crapper (CAPS mine)

Interesting "error" in your word choice, don't you think? It's exactly what they're doing -- PLAYING at becoming president. posted 03/24/2008 at 12:41:40

The most interesting fact underneath these facts (and not a surprising one at that) is that, under the Bush administration from 2001 to 2007, the debt grew at a faster annual rate than it did from 2000 to 2001, the last year Bill Clinton was in office.

Also interesting to me is that the rate of debt increase has been steadily slowing since the rate peaked at 8.91% for 2003 over 2002. For 2006 to 2007, the rate of increase was 5.89%. I have no idea what this means, except to surmise that the government is borrowing less now than it has over the last three years. Why is this? Perhaps Mr. Stewart can take a run at this. posted 03/24/2008 at 14:24:00

Nuts. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone currently posting on this board or this website truly knows how or why these "contract employees" accessed Mr. Obama's passport records. However, if it is your intention to find a connection between the incidents and Hillary or Bill Clinton, then you are likely to find it. Intentions are funny that way; you generally find what it is you're looking for to confirm your suspicions.

If you're really serious about wanting to know more about this then you'll question everything you read and hear and try to disprove it before definitively adopting it to confirm your suspicions. posted 03/21/2008 at 11:06:04