fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203045.html
re: "The Leader Who Stood the Tallest"
Gerson,
Not only is your pickle limp, your mind is shot!
Swiss-cheese in the cranium!
Obviously, there's no cure yet for ideological syphilis.
How else does one explain your man-crush on Bush?
Perhaps, Crack? Are you smoking Crack?
When all is said and done you're gonna have to start taking the pills Krautcrazy is on. See his column today? At least he's trying to rehabilitate his mind! You on the other hand are beyond the pale. Surely it cannot be healthy to speak out the same orifice you wipe! Gerson, fix your affliction now; get thee to an arsehole doctor.
My God, "Bush's economic ideology... seems well suited to the current crisis"??? Are you crazy, his lax administrative tenure, morally bankrupt economic ideology, and his playing to the elites is what wrecked America's fiscal boat on the rocks! Did you also defend the Captain of the Exxon Valdez?
Indeed, what the "strobe light on a dark dance floor" that catches "all involved in characteristic, sometimes embarrassing poses" is revealing to me is that you are a petty apologist, on your knees, amid the disco, mouth open willing to service thy master no matter what the cost.
Gerson, you are clearly a closeted freak on Crack! Get some help you pathetic discourse distortionist. Get some help now. Before the music stops and you have lockjaw.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Winking Palin does Trick For Brooks
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html
re; "The Palin Rebound"
October 3rd, 2008 4:10 am
David,
Nice try, but your take is little more than vexatious pandering obviously aided by a dose of ideological Viagara.
Last night, my twelve year daughter, Quinn, sat with me throughout the last 45 minutes of the debate. Below is the transcript of our discussion. It speaks for itself:
Quinn: Dad, whatchwatching?
Me: American debate.
Quinn: Why, isn't the Canadian one on?
Me: Yeah, I'm taping it - I'll watch after you guys are in bed.
Quinn: But, Dad why do you watch the American one.
Me: Because it matters what they decide.
Quinn: Hey, is that lady ... Is that that Palin lady?
Me: Yes.
[Minutes pass, Ifill asks Palin another direct question.]
Quinn: Dad, is she s'pposed to answer the question asked?
Me: Well, in a debate, sometimes people try to avoid questions.
Quinn: Oh, ... but the other guy, the old one, he's answering the questions.
Me: Yeah, he's trying to show he's up to the job.
Quinn: But, her, Palin she just keeps talking about herself ... she's not answering the questions.
Me: No, she's not - that's their strategy.
Quinn: Yeah, but she keeps saying the same thing, 'Me and McCain' - she just keeps saying the same thing.
Me: Yeah, sometimes politics is like that.
Quinn: That's silly... hey, did you see that. She just winked at us? She just winked?
Me: [sigh] Yes, I'm trying to hear what she's saying...
Quinn: But dad she just WINKED at us!
Me: shhh...
Quinn: I don't know why your listening... she's just saying the same thing over and over... I can't believe she winked at us! Weird! I'm going to bed.
Me: G'night... [Quick hug and kiss]
And as Buddha is my witness, when I turn back to the screen Palin is winking at me again... "Weird" indeed?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
re; "The Palin Rebound"
October 3rd, 2008 4:10 am
David,
Nice try, but your take is little more than vexatious pandering obviously aided by a dose of ideological Viagara.
Last night, my twelve year daughter, Quinn, sat with me throughout the last 45 minutes of the debate. Below is the transcript of our discussion. It speaks for itself:
Quinn: Dad, whatchwatching?
Me: American debate.
Quinn: Why, isn't the Canadian one on?
Me: Yeah, I'm taping it - I'll watch after you guys are in bed.
Quinn: But, Dad why do you watch the American one.
Me: Because it matters what they decide.
Quinn: Hey, is that lady ... Is that that Palin lady?
Me: Yes.
[Minutes pass, Ifill asks Palin another direct question.]
Quinn: Dad, is she s'pposed to answer the question asked?
Me: Well, in a debate, sometimes people try to avoid questions.
Quinn: Oh, ... but the other guy, the old one, he's answering the questions.
Me: Yeah, he's trying to show he's up to the job.
Quinn: But, her, Palin she just keeps talking about herself ... she's not answering the questions.
Me: No, she's not - that's their strategy.
Quinn: Yeah, but she keeps saying the same thing, 'Me and McCain' - she just keeps saying the same thing.
Me: Yeah, sometimes politics is like that.
Quinn: That's silly... hey, did you see that. She just winked at us? She just winked?
Me: [sigh] Yes, I'm trying to hear what she's saying...
Quinn: But dad she just WINKED at us!
Me: shhh...
Quinn: I don't know why your listening... she's just saying the same thing over and over... I can't believe she winked at us! Weird! I'm going to bed.
Me: G'night... [Quick hug and kiss]
And as Buddha is my witness, when I turn back to the screen Palin is winking at me again... "Weird" indeed?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
NYT's "The Vice-Presidential Debate" - Send in the Clowns
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri1.html
October 3rd, 2008 3:30 am
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
While it may be true that Palin's debate performance was not a debacle - it's nevertheless clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
But fear not, McCain's not done yet. Alas, he is at this moment, conjuring a new strategy. Maybe one with a Broadway angle? Glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring, he's probably echoing Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 3rd, 2008 3:30 am
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
While it may be true that Palin's debate performance was not a debacle - it's nevertheless clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
But fear not, McCain's not done yet. Alas, he is at this moment, conjuring a new strategy. Maybe one with a Broadway angle? Glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring, he's probably echoing Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
McCain - "Send in the Clowns"
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203043.html - "Hail mary vs. Cool Barry"
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
Dear Krautcrazy,
Again, reflecting on the new found reason you are exhibiting, again I say kudos on your rehab. May full recovery not be far behind.
In light of Palin's debate performance it's clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
Hail Mary's for sure, take solace Krautcrazy, McCain's probably not done yet?
Alas, he is probably, at this moment, conjuring a new 4th quarter play. Probably it's something as bold as taking his show to Broadway, for undoubtedly, McCain is now with glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring and then belting out a rip-off of Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
Dear Krautcrazy,
Again, reflecting on the new found reason you are exhibiting, again I say kudos on your rehab. May full recovery not be far behind.
In light of Palin's debate performance it's clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
Hail Mary's for sure, take solace Krautcrazy, McCain's probably not done yet?
Alas, he is probably, at this moment, conjuring a new 4th quarter play. Probably it's something as bold as taking his show to Broadway, for undoubtedly, McCain is now with glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring and then belting out a rip-off of Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Cohen's "Nixon, Bush, Palin" - time for a course correction.
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/opinion/02Cohen.html
October 02, 2008 7:03 am
The most redeeming thing about a democracy is that it periodically affords a country's citizens the opportunity to correct course.
One can only hope that American voters recognize November 4th for what it is - a watershed event in the country's history. Failure to change course now will break America.
The election is not about Palin, it is not about McCain, it is not, and cannot be about, Guns, God, and vacuous Patriotism - it must be about progress - a new path. Otherwise, 'Rome will burn' and there will not be enough water on either Wall or Main Street to put the blaze out.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 02, 2008 7:03 am
The most redeeming thing about a democracy is that it periodically affords a country's citizens the opportunity to correct course.
One can only hope that American voters recognize November 4th for what it is - a watershed event in the country's history. Failure to change course now will break America.
The election is not about Palin, it is not about McCain, it is not, and cannot be about, Guns, God, and vacuous Patriotism - it must be about progress - a new path. Otherwise, 'Rome will burn' and there will not be enough water on either Wall or Main Street to put the blaze out.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
NYT's "Rescue the Rescue" - Regulation needed.
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01friedman.html
136.
October 01, 2008 8:47 am
Link
Mr. Friedman,
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings, is only rivaled by the failure of Congress to act with reasoned purpose this past week. Neither group is blameless.
By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does mean that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Those like George Will who cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism are misguided. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation.
Anyone who argues, as George Will does, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, they do not understand the organic nature of American political history. Simple fact is, and has always been, that periodic increases in the size of government are often required to see the nation through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Today America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As George Will admitted in today's WaPo, no matter where one stands on the regulatory question, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
136.
October 01, 2008 8:47 am
Link
Mr. Friedman,
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings, is only rivaled by the failure of Congress to act with reasoned purpose this past week. Neither group is blameless.
By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does mean that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Those like George Will who cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism are misguided. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation.
Anyone who argues, as George Will does, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, they do not understand the organic nature of American political history. Simple fact is, and has always been, that periodic increases in the size of government are often required to see the nation through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Today America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As George Will admitted in today's WaPo, no matter where one stands on the regulatory question, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
George Will - Maybe He Needs Regulation?
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002320.html
Georgie Boy,
Reading this column "was easy, but not necessarily" fruitful. At times, it was just nausea inducing.
Okay Georgie Boy, let us "talk sense about the cultural roots of the financial crisis". Firstly, and I say this grudgingly, you are actually correct on at least one count - the public is not blameless.
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings. By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does not preclude the fact that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, Georgie, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Apparently Georgie you cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism. Pity, one would think your prominent spectacles would allow you to see farther into the future. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation. Anyone who argues, as you do, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, you do not understand the organic nature of your own country. Periodic increases in the size of government are sometimes required to see it through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Georgie Boy, America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As you said Georgie, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
FIN
p.s. Georgie, re: your intriguing 'cultural roots' paradigm introduced at the beginning of column, it had potential. But true to form you choose to use it as 'device' rather than tool. Yet again, you meandered, dragging us up and down, and all around pundit-dung valley without ever coming to your point. What was your point about the role of culture? Too bad... I must have missed it amid your sniping at Democrats. Again, pity, would have loved to see you flesh it out.
Georgie Boy,
Reading this column "was easy, but not necessarily" fruitful. At times, it was just nausea inducing.
Okay Georgie Boy, let us "talk sense about the cultural roots of the financial crisis". Firstly, and I say this grudgingly, you are actually correct on at least one count - the public is not blameless.
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings. By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does not preclude the fact that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, Georgie, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Apparently Georgie you cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism. Pity, one would think your prominent spectacles would allow you to see farther into the future. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation. Anyone who argues, as you do, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, you do not understand the organic nature of your own country. Periodic increases in the size of government are sometimes required to see it through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Georgie Boy, America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As you said Georgie, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
FIN
p.s. Georgie, re: your intriguing 'cultural roots' paradigm introduced at the beginning of column, it had potential. But true to form you choose to use it as 'device' rather than tool. Yet again, you meandered, dragging us up and down, and all around pundit-dung valley without ever coming to your point. What was your point about the role of culture? Too bad... I must have missed it amid your sniping at Democrats. Again, pity, would have loved to see you flesh it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
