State of the Union

State of the Union January 25, 2012

I always make a point of watching the annual state of the union address–no matter who the president is– as a sort of patriotic discipline. But I was not able to watch it last night. What did I miss? What did you learn?


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tom Hering
  • Tom Hering
  • I think the trip to utopia is going along swimmingly.

  • I think the trip to utopia is going along swimmingly.

  • Tom Hering

    What stood out for me:

    I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad— and it seems to get worse every year.

    Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

    The weak applause that followed left me less than hopeful things will change.

    Background information: Throw Them All Out

  • Tom Hering

    What stood out for me:

    I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad— and it seems to get worse every year.

    Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

    The weak applause that followed left me less than hopeful things will change.

    Background information: Throw Them All Out

  • Danny

    I don’t watch re-runs.

  • Danny

    I don’t watch re-runs.

  • Carl Vehse

    Danny @4,

    Others noted the same pathetic thing.

  • Carl Vehse

    Danny @4,

    Others noted the same pathetic thing.

  • Cincinnatus

    Whereas State of the Union addresses (or letters to Congress, in the early Republic) were once an actual report of the state of the Union under the presiding watch of a President, they are now little more than rhetorically shallow campaign events. Why would I watch them?

  • Cincinnatus

    Whereas State of the Union addresses (or letters to Congress, in the early Republic) were once an actual report of the state of the Union under the presiding watch of a President, they are now little more than rhetorically shallow campaign events. Why would I watch them?

  • Tom Hering

    Re: @ 2, 4, 5, 6. It seems conservatives are unable to address the content of the President’s speech. Because they didn’t listen to it. Or something. Interesting. 😀

  • Tom Hering

    Re: @ 2, 4, 5, 6. It seems conservatives are unable to address the content of the President’s speech. Because they didn’t listen to it. Or something. Interesting. 😀

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@7: Nope, didn’t listen to it, and haven’t listened to it for five or six years, at least. I’ve found them all to be empty rhetorical grandstanding. In fact, I’m generally cool on the goings-on of partisan politics at the national level in general, preferring to focus my attention on local elections and the like.

    It doesn’t help that Obama in particular is highly overrated as a public speaker, and that his particular brand of oratory (or lack thereof) is profoundly boring and annoying in my opinion.

    Give me the highlights. Did he propose any fundamentally new directions for the future of the Republic?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@7: Nope, didn’t listen to it, and haven’t listened to it for five or six years, at least. I’ve found them all to be empty rhetorical grandstanding. In fact, I’m generally cool on the goings-on of partisan politics at the national level in general, preferring to focus my attention on local elections and the like.

    It doesn’t help that Obama in particular is highly overrated as a public speaker, and that his particular brand of oratory (or lack thereof) is profoundly boring and annoying in my opinion.

    Give me the highlights. Did he propose any fundamentally new directions for the future of the Republic?

  • Rose

    “Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense”–the President.
    Dave Ramsay noted this morning that it’s the tax rate of the secretary that is more, not the actual taxes.

  • Rose

    “Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense”–the President.
    Dave Ramsay noted this morning that it’s the tax rate of the secretary that is more, not the actual taxes.

  • Tom Hering

    @ 8. “Fundamentally new directions for the future of the Republic”? That’s what you want to know you’ll hear before you’ll listen? Why isn’t identifying current problems – you know, the state of the Union – enough for you? You don’t have to like the proposed solutions, or even believe the President is sincere in his concerns (I have my doubts).

  • Tom Hering

    @ 8. “Fundamentally new directions for the future of the Republic”? That’s what you want to know you’ll hear before you’ll listen? Why isn’t identifying current problems – you know, the state of the Union – enough for you? You don’t have to like the proposed solutions, or even believe the President is sincere in his concerns (I have my doubts).

  • Cincinnatus

    Rose,

    And? Even Romney knows that it’s silly that he paid less than 15% on his 21 million dollars in income last year. While I’m not a fan of taxes in general, especially income taxes, I really don’t understand Republican intransigence on tax rates for the truly wealthy. Romney is paying a lower effective rate on his income, almost all of which was capital gains for which he expended no labor, than I am on the income for which I worked 50+ hours per week. Proportionally, the taxes he is paying, which dwarf in sheer quantity my salary, don’t affect his qualify of life as much as my taxes, which are numerically tiny compared to Romney’s, affect mine.

  • Cincinnatus

    Rose,

    And? Even Romney knows that it’s silly that he paid less than 15% on his 21 million dollars in income last year. While I’m not a fan of taxes in general, especially income taxes, I really don’t understand Republican intransigence on tax rates for the truly wealthy. Romney is paying a lower effective rate on his income, almost all of which was capital gains for which he expended no labor, than I am on the income for which I worked 50+ hours per week. Proportionally, the taxes he is paying, which dwarf in sheer quantity my salary, don’t affect his qualify of life as much as my taxes, which are numerically tiny compared to Romney’s, affect mine.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@10:

    Because I already know the current problems and the proposed solutions. That’s exactly why I stopped tuning in several years ago: State of the Unions seldom say anything new. For an informed citizen, they don’t teach anything. They’re glorified campaign speeches these days, especially since Obama’s announced platform has essentially no chance of passing this year.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@10:

    Because I already know the current problems and the proposed solutions. That’s exactly why I stopped tuning in several years ago: State of the Unions seldom say anything new. For an informed citizen, they don’t teach anything. They’re glorified campaign speeches these days, especially since Obama’s announced platform has essentially no chance of passing this year.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, what was new was Obama’s last-quarter concern for the common man, which I fear is nothing but empty, populist rhetoric. Same as we get from the Republican candidates. What won’t be new is the way DC operates in 2013, no matter who’s elected to national office in 2012. This means corruption as usual, which means a preference for the interests of corporations, as usual.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, what was new was Obama’s last-quarter concern for the common man, which I fear is nothing but empty, populist rhetoric. Same as we get from the Republican candidates. What won’t be new is the way DC operates in 2013, no matter who’s elected to national office in 2012. This means corruption as usual, which means a preference for the interests of corporations, as usual.

  • Tom, with all due respect, you’re drinking this guy’s Kool-Aid. There’s nothing new or good about Obama’s policies. He’s just another cog in the machine whose solution to everything is more government power, more government regulation, more laws, more oversight, more micromanagement, more “the rich pay so little” propaganda, etc. He has not once proposed any serious limiting of governmental power in any area. He is the typical Washington “government is god” politician, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

    And for the record, this attitude isn’t limited to one side of the political aisle. Maybe I sound like a cynic, but when I hear a difference only in degrees and not in substance between the two parties, I start whistling “Won’t get fooled again.”

  • Tom, with all due respect, you’re drinking this guy’s Kool-Aid. There’s nothing new or good about Obama’s policies. He’s just another cog in the machine whose solution to everything is more government power, more government regulation, more laws, more oversight, more micromanagement, more “the rich pay so little” propaganda, etc. He has not once proposed any serious limiting of governmental power in any area. He is the typical Washington “government is god” politician, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

    And for the record, this attitude isn’t limited to one side of the political aisle. Maybe I sound like a cynic, but when I hear a difference only in degrees and not in substance between the two parties, I start whistling “Won’t get fooled again.”

  • formerly just steve

    Man, Tom, I was right there with you up until the last line. You can’t seriously tell me that corporations are the only entities politicians are cozying up to. That would be true if corporations were they only source of power and influence. But you and I both know that there are others in the halls of power that are directing the affairs of men.

    Are you willing to name them too?

  • formerly just steve

    Man, Tom, I was right there with you up until the last line. You can’t seriously tell me that corporations are the only entities politicians are cozying up to. That would be true if corporations were they only source of power and influence. But you and I both know that there are others in the halls of power that are directing the affairs of men.

    Are you willing to name them too?

  • Tom Hering

    J. Dean, I think it’s clear from my comments I’m not “drinking this guy’s Kool-Aid.” Do you say that just because my view of government’s role is different from yours?

    formerly just steve: our lizard-race alien overlords?

  • Tom Hering

    J. Dean, I think it’s clear from my comments I’m not “drinking this guy’s Kool-Aid.” Do you say that just because my view of government’s role is different from yours?

    formerly just steve: our lizard-race alien overlords?

  • formerly just steve

    Disappointing, Tom.

  • formerly just steve

    Disappointing, Tom.

  • MarkB

    I am worried about President Obama’s statement that he can’t wait which means that he will bypass congress as he has done before. He has become the Imperial President. However, this has been coming for a long time. Presidents from both sides of the aisle have taken more authority on over the last 50 years and bypassed congress without congress pushing back.

  • MarkB

    I am worried about President Obama’s statement that he can’t wait which means that he will bypass congress as he has done before. He has become the Imperial President. However, this has been coming for a long time. Presidents from both sides of the aisle have taken more authority on over the last 50 years and bypassed congress without congress pushing back.

  • Here is what you missed.

    Just a bunch of talk.

  • Here is what you missed.

    Just a bunch of talk.

  • SKPeterson

    I responded to a friend who admitted he missed the speech because he went bowling that he had done a greater service to his country and his neighbors by going bowling than the President did in giving the speech and Congress did in attending it.

  • SKPeterson

    I responded to a friend who admitted he missed the speech because he went bowling that he had done a greater service to his country and his neighbors by going bowling than the President did in giving the speech and Congress did in attending it.

  • Dennis Peskey

    I would most appreciate he/she who could refresh my belief in a democratic form of government. Much of what the President said has been pronounced before (as Carl note #5). Yet noting this does not address the substance of what he said. And, given the concluding remarks concerning the daily operation of Congress, I’m left with little hope our country can begin to address the problems which confront our nation, much less offer acceptable solutions to these problems. Where can an independent voter go to find relief for even the leading Republican candidate acknowledged his tax rate is barely half the load I endure. It seems the only united position we all embrace is our nation’s military and it’s preformance. But the military does not build roads, educate the populace, enhance commerce nor a host of other areas which need consensus for our nation to move forward. Again, I’m left with the conclusion democracy has reached a functional impasse for our nation; please declare the incorrectness of my assertion.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    I would most appreciate he/she who could refresh my belief in a democratic form of government. Much of what the President said has been pronounced before (as Carl note #5). Yet noting this does not address the substance of what he said. And, given the concluding remarks concerning the daily operation of Congress, I’m left with little hope our country can begin to address the problems which confront our nation, much less offer acceptable solutions to these problems. Where can an independent voter go to find relief for even the leading Republican candidate acknowledged his tax rate is barely half the load I endure. It seems the only united position we all embrace is our nation’s military and it’s preformance. But the military does not build roads, educate the populace, enhance commerce nor a host of other areas which need consensus for our nation to move forward. Again, I’m left with the conclusion democracy has reached a functional impasse for our nation; please declare the incorrectness of my assertion.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Tom, I say that because not once have I heard you ever disagree with him.

    As for the roles of government, I don’t know about you, but I do not believe government is the solution to everything, but is in fact more often than not the problem, as a good chunk of history will validate.

  • Tom, I say that because not once have I heard you ever disagree with him.

    As for the roles of government, I don’t know about you, but I do not believe government is the solution to everything, but is in fact more often than not the problem, as a good chunk of history will validate.

  • ELB

    Tom @13 decries the “empty, populist rhetoric. Same as we get from the Republican candidates.”

    I don’t agree much with you Tom, but I do agree with you here, though I may not decry the rhetoric for the same reasons you do.

    What counts for “populism” is really an appeal to envy. “I don’t have something so the other guy shouldn’t either.” This rhetoric obscures the far more basic issue that we are moving from a capitalist idea to a statist one. I’ll present the two starkly for the sake of clarity.

    Under the capitalist idea individuals amass capital which they then place at risk in the form of investment. If the investment is successful they reap the benefit. If they are not successful, they bear the loss. Taxes on profits are lower because they are compounded with the risk to become disincentives to investment.
    [The role of government is to punish those who deal dishonestly in the way they represent risk to the investers – including small shareholders.]

    Under the statist idea it is the state that gathers and invests the capital, and in its most pernicious form allows people to invest their own capital or even the state’s (read: the taxpayers’) capital and reap the benefit if successful, while the taxpayer suffers the loss if they are not successful. Solyndra was only one example of this. There were plenty of others who were shielded from loss resulting from their risks during the latest bubble.
    [Here the role of government is to gather and invest capital, not with a view to return, but with a view to some sort of public policy chosen by the elite. Often a well-meant but ultimately statist public policy is the attempt to determine equality of outcomes.]

    As we have seen in the “occupy” movement, often people are rejecting the statist model while calling it capitalism. In fact, monopolies and “guaranteed” investments that bilk the taxpayer have to be accomplished through government.

  • ELB

    Tom @13 decries the “empty, populist rhetoric. Same as we get from the Republican candidates.”

    I don’t agree much with you Tom, but I do agree with you here, though I may not decry the rhetoric for the same reasons you do.

    What counts for “populism” is really an appeal to envy. “I don’t have something so the other guy shouldn’t either.” This rhetoric obscures the far more basic issue that we are moving from a capitalist idea to a statist one. I’ll present the two starkly for the sake of clarity.

    Under the capitalist idea individuals amass capital which they then place at risk in the form of investment. If the investment is successful they reap the benefit. If they are not successful, they bear the loss. Taxes on profits are lower because they are compounded with the risk to become disincentives to investment.
    [The role of government is to punish those who deal dishonestly in the way they represent risk to the investers – including small shareholders.]

    Under the statist idea it is the state that gathers and invests the capital, and in its most pernicious form allows people to invest their own capital or even the state’s (read: the taxpayers’) capital and reap the benefit if successful, while the taxpayer suffers the loss if they are not successful. Solyndra was only one example of this. There were plenty of others who were shielded from loss resulting from their risks during the latest bubble.
    [Here the role of government is to gather and invest capital, not with a view to return, but with a view to some sort of public policy chosen by the elite. Often a well-meant but ultimately statist public policy is the attempt to determine equality of outcomes.]

    As we have seen in the “occupy” movement, often people are rejecting the statist model while calling it capitalism. In fact, monopolies and “guaranteed” investments that bilk the taxpayer have to be accomplished through government.

  • DonS

    I heard a few minutes. It sounded the same as last year’s. Apparently, he droned on for a near-record 1 hour, seventeen minutes.

    Also, apparently, no plan was announced for ensuring that the federal government spends no more than it takes in each year. Fail.

  • DonS

    I heard a few minutes. It sounded the same as last year’s. Apparently, he droned on for a near-record 1 hour, seventeen minutes.

    Also, apparently, no plan was announced for ensuring that the federal government spends no more than it takes in each year. Fail.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    C’mon, be honest now: How many of you conservatives lsitened to the address without any preconceived notions? Without looking for the trigger words that would confoirm what you had already decided your opinion is going to be?

    Just like the other side did with the previous guy?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    C’mon, be honest now: How many of you conservatives lsitened to the address without any preconceived notions? Without looking for the trigger words that would confoirm what you had already decided your opinion is going to be?

    Just like the other side did with the previous guy?

  • Dust

    Dennis….our Country has faced many problems in the past and has, so far, found a way to survive. There is really almost “nothing new under the sun” that we have not gone through already. Check out this little book for more background:

    http://www.amazon.com/History-Country-David-Saville-Muzzey/dp/B000P9NI9G

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Dennis….our Country has faced many problems in the past and has, so far, found a way to survive. There is really almost “nothing new under the sun” that we have not gone through already. Check out this little book for more background:

    http://www.amazon.com/History-Country-David-Saville-Muzzey/dp/B000P9NI9G

    Cheers!

  • Bob

    Nice to hear an adult. Too bad he was speaking to a group of petulant, obstructionist, whiny babies.

  • Bob

    Nice to hear an adult. Too bad he was speaking to a group of petulant, obstructionist, whiny babies.

  • Dust

    Klasie….Semantic games anyone 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Klasie….Semantic games anyone 🙂

    cheers!

  • It’s true, the president disappointed us conservatives by not leaving out “trigger words” and code talk.

    But what did we expect?

  • It’s true, the president disappointed us conservatives by not leaving out “trigger words” and code talk.

    But what did we expect?

  • Cincinnatus

    …and Bob@27 is a fine example of those whom Klasie describes as “the other side” who dutifully ignored “the previous guy.”

  • Cincinnatus

    …and Bob@27 is a fine example of those whom Klasie describes as “the other side” who dutifully ignored “the previous guy.”

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus @ 30 – yes, quite right.

    Dust – you are excellent at missing/obscuring the point. No wonder you’re in academia 🙂

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus @ 30 – yes, quite right.

    Dust – you are excellent at missing/obscuring the point. No wonder you’re in academia 🙂

  • Dust

    Klasie….it takes one, to know one 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Klasie….it takes one, to know one 🙂

    cheers!

  • DonS

    Bob @ 27: No, there were Republicans in the room too. 😉

  • DonS

    Bob @ 27: No, there were Republicans in the room too. 😉

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Meanwhile, while all the disapprovers sat scowling at their screens, Obama was a happy man, as he had learnt, moments before going before the session, that Seal Team 6 was successful once again in a raid, this in a very rare one into Somalia, setting free two hostages, one American with Danish companion, killing the Pirate Hostage takers.

    And the same scowlers, who accuse him of bowing to Iran and what not, ignored the fact that earlier this week, after Iran threatend war if the US did so, the US sailed an Aircraft carrier,in conjunction with a British and a French warship, through the strait of Hormuz, calling Iran’s bluff, all the while rescuing, once again, stranded Iranian fishermen.

    And the same scowlers hunger after big spending Republicans….

    BTW, there are some noted exceptions here. But this is just politcal hubris, once again. Leaving this outsider singularly unimpressed, once again.

    PS: Dust, if you happen to say something original one day, please warn me, as I would not want to have a coronary…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Meanwhile, while all the disapprovers sat scowling at their screens, Obama was a happy man, as he had learnt, moments before going before the session, that Seal Team 6 was successful once again in a raid, this in a very rare one into Somalia, setting free two hostages, one American with Danish companion, killing the Pirate Hostage takers.

    And the same scowlers, who accuse him of bowing to Iran and what not, ignored the fact that earlier this week, after Iran threatend war if the US did so, the US sailed an Aircraft carrier,in conjunction with a British and a French warship, through the strait of Hormuz, calling Iran’s bluff, all the while rescuing, once again, stranded Iranian fishermen.

    And the same scowlers hunger after big spending Republicans….

    BTW, there are some noted exceptions here. But this is just politcal hubris, once again. Leaving this outsider singularly unimpressed, once again.

    PS: Dust, if you happen to say something original one day, please warn me, as I would not want to have a coronary…

  • Dust

    Klasie…honestly, you may need to adjust your meds. Have looked over the comments so far and can find none that match your criticisms in 34. Perhaps they are there, but one needs special powers to see them…sort of like Don Quixote who could see a dragon where other saw a windmill 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Klasie…honestly, you may need to adjust your meds. Have looked over the comments so far and can find none that match your criticisms in 34. Perhaps they are there, but one needs special powers to see them…sort of like Don Quixote who could see a dragon where other saw a windmill 🙂

    cheers!

  • DonS

    Klasie @ 34: What is your point? And who are you accusing of “political hubris”? If you have something to say, say it.

  • DonS

    Klasie @ 34: What is your point? And who are you accusing of “political hubris”? If you have something to say, say it.

  • Grace

    My husband and I watched the State of the Union address. In a word? EMBARRASSING!

    Obama’s language skills are that of someone shouting on a corner, in short un-educated phrases. No wonder Obama has never released his grades or papers (if there are any) from Harvard, or elsewhere.

    This from POLITICO:

    State of the Union registers at 8th grade reading level

    By BYRON TAU |
    1/25/12 9:53 AM EST

    “President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address again rated at an 8th grade comprehension level on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test — the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934.

    The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics conducted an analysis on the last 70 State of the Union addresses and found that President Obama’s three addresses have the lowest grade average of any modern president. “Obama’s average grade-level score of 8.4 is more than two grades lower than the 10.7 grade average for the other 67 addresses written by his 12 predecessors,” they conclude.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

  • Grace

    My husband and I watched the State of the Union address. In a word? EMBARRASSING!

    Obama’s language skills are that of someone shouting on a corner, in short un-educated phrases. No wonder Obama has never released his grades or papers (if there are any) from Harvard, or elsewhere.

    This from POLITICO:

    State of the Union registers at 8th grade reading level

    By BYRON TAU |
    1/25/12 9:53 AM EST

    “President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address again rated at an 8th grade comprehension level on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test — the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934.

    The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics conducted an analysis on the last 70 State of the Union addresses and found that President Obama’s three addresses have the lowest grade average of any modern president. “Obama’s average grade-level score of 8.4 is more than two grades lower than the 10.7 grade average for the other 67 addresses written by his 12 predecessors,” they conclude.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, Obama has to consider the Republicans listening to him.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, Obama has to consider the Republicans listening to him.

  • Cincinnatus

    Klasie@34:

    Maybe I hang out with the “wrong” sort of conservatives, but I’ve met few who criticize Obama for being too “soft” on Iran. In fact, most of the conservatives I have in mind are deeply critical of his belligerent policy towards Iran. But I tend to associate with Paultards, “heartland isolationists,” and the like.

  • Cincinnatus

    Klasie@34:

    Maybe I hang out with the “wrong” sort of conservatives, but I’ve met few who criticize Obama for being too “soft” on Iran. In fact, most of the conservatives I have in mind are deeply critical of his belligerent policy towards Iran. But I tend to associate with Paultards, “heartland isolationists,” and the like.

  • Grace

    Read Obama’s two books, they are no different then his speeches and interviews. And lets not forget the many TELEPROMPTERS, they were visible off and on during the whole address.

  • Grace

    Read Obama’s two books, they are no different then his speeches and interviews. And lets not forget the many TELEPROMPTERS, they were visible off and on during the whole address.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 39, maybe I should hang out with you guys a little more, as I find the following excerpts a little disturbing:

    Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal … Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history … from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 39, maybe I should hang out with you guys a little more, as I find the following excerpts a little disturbing:

    Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal … Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history … from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 40, at least he doesn’t need his audience to cheer and shout before he can win a debate. If you know who I mean, and what I’m referring to. 😀

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 40, at least he doesn’t need his audience to cheer and shout before he can win a debate. If you know who I mean, and what I’m referring to. 😀

  • Bob

    #33

    Excellent, DonS!

    I realized too late after posting that I set myself up for that one.

    🙂 🙂

  • Bob

    #33

    Excellent, DonS!

    I realized too late after posting that I set myself up for that one.

    🙂 🙂

  • Bob

    I have a good friend working in US foreign government service whose kids attended the Academy in Nairobi where one of the hostages was
    teaching.

  • Bob

    I have a good friend working in US foreign government service whose kids attended the Academy in Nairobi where one of the hostages was
    teaching.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    Gingrich gets the applause because those in the audience agree with him, he is a brilliant man, his language skills are that of an educated individual – that cannot be said of Obama, no matter what universities he attended.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    Gingrich gets the applause because those in the audience agree with him, he is a brilliant man, his language skills are that of an educated individual – that cannot be said of Obama, no matter what universities he attended.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 45, getting applause, and insisting that he be allowed to recieve applause – in order win future debates – are two different things. Maybe he can dress as the Emperor, and have his opponents silenced by lions and gladiators, too. 😀

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 45, getting applause, and insisting that he be allowed to recieve applause – in order win future debates – are two different things. Maybe he can dress as the Emperor, and have his opponents silenced by lions and gladiators, too. 😀

  • Grace

    Anyone should be allowed to receive applause during a debate. That would include all those taking part – it’s what people do when they agree with those who are speaking. The reason ‘some individuals find it troubling, is; they (or their network choices) don’t receive adulation/applause, therefore they wanted to shut it down.

  • Grace

    Anyone should be allowed to receive applause during a debate. That would include all those taking part – it’s what people do when they agree with those who are speaking. The reason ‘some individuals find it troubling, is; they (or their network choices) don’t receive adulation/applause, therefore they wanted to shut it down.

  • Tom Hering

    Ha! Newt insists on receiving applause so he can make it obvious others don’t receive applause? That’s rich, Grace. So what do you make of his threat not to participate in future debates if he’s not allowed to bask in his supporters’ applause? What’s he running for? Pouter-In-Chief (as someone has suggested)?

  • Tom Hering

    Ha! Newt insists on receiving applause so he can make it obvious others don’t receive applause? That’s rich, Grace. So what do you make of his threat not to participate in future debates if he’s not allowed to bask in his supporters’ applause? What’s he running for? Pouter-In-Chief (as someone has suggested)?

  • Noel

    After reading all the above comments, listening carefully to the Republican candidates, having my conservative friends send me tons of satirical comics and secret and unknown information about President Obama, and some really hateful stuff that sounds like what the Dems said about Bush, I was not even going to bother to listen to “another” speech – by either side.

    I listened and actually like a lot of what I said. If Congress itself could correct its insider trading, stop the insider lobbying after serving, cut loopholes, I would be much more inclined to listen to them. I don’t trust them to do that. Being a middle of a roader I find that the Reps refusal to consider taxes on the rich as unrealistic to me as the Dems wanting to fund everything they can without seeming awareness of the consequences. I actually came away feeling President Obama as more middle of the road that either party. That surprises me when my friends are sure he is in cahoots with some of his communist friends.

    I may end up holding my nose and voting for the one who will do the least damage. That will certainly mean Paul won’t be considered. But it will not likely be anyone who has signed a pledge to never raise taxes either. That has to be part of the open discussion.

    I would lean toward a Rep; Newt talks a good line when he is not blowing his top and if he is really “repentant”, Romney seems aloof, Santorium seems like a nice guy, but not inspiring, Paul is totally whacko when it comes to foreign relations, and Obama has friends that I deeply distrust. His speech actually lifted him into contention.

  • Noel

    After reading all the above comments, listening carefully to the Republican candidates, having my conservative friends send me tons of satirical comics and secret and unknown information about President Obama, and some really hateful stuff that sounds like what the Dems said about Bush, I was not even going to bother to listen to “another” speech – by either side.

    I listened and actually like a lot of what I said. If Congress itself could correct its insider trading, stop the insider lobbying after serving, cut loopholes, I would be much more inclined to listen to them. I don’t trust them to do that. Being a middle of a roader I find that the Reps refusal to consider taxes on the rich as unrealistic to me as the Dems wanting to fund everything they can without seeming awareness of the consequences. I actually came away feeling President Obama as more middle of the road that either party. That surprises me when my friends are sure he is in cahoots with some of his communist friends.

    I may end up holding my nose and voting for the one who will do the least damage. That will certainly mean Paul won’t be considered. But it will not likely be anyone who has signed a pledge to never raise taxes either. That has to be part of the open discussion.

    I would lean toward a Rep; Newt talks a good line when he is not blowing his top and if he is really “repentant”, Romney seems aloof, Santorium seems like a nice guy, but not inspiring, Paul is totally whacko when it comes to foreign relations, and Obama has friends that I deeply distrust. His speech actually lifted him into contention.

  • Grace

    Poor Mittsi the poutster, standing without applause – well, it’s all fixed now. We once again will be able to applaud if we choose!

    CNN Will Allow Applause At Jacksonville Debate; No ‘Shouting Or Booing’

    1/24/2012

    NEW YORK — Newt Gingrich won’t have to worry about the audience being completely quiet during Thursday’s debate in Jacksonville, the final primetime face-off before the Jan. 31 Florida primary.

    CNN allows the audience to applaud the candidates, but in a statement to The Huffington Post, a CNN spokesman explained that some types of behavior will not be permitted.

    “As we have done in the past, CNN will ask the audience to be respectful of the candidates,” a CNN spokesperson said. “We have always said that if audience reaction such as shouting or booing interferes with the debate or with the candidates’ answers, we will ask the audience to refrain.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/cnn-will-allow-applause-a_n_1228430.html?ref=media

  • Grace

    Poor Mittsi the poutster, standing without applause – well, it’s all fixed now. We once again will be able to applaud if we choose!

    CNN Will Allow Applause At Jacksonville Debate; No ‘Shouting Or Booing’

    1/24/2012

    NEW YORK — Newt Gingrich won’t have to worry about the audience being completely quiet during Thursday’s debate in Jacksonville, the final primetime face-off before the Jan. 31 Florida primary.

    CNN allows the audience to applaud the candidates, but in a statement to The Huffington Post, a CNN spokesman explained that some types of behavior will not be permitted.

    “As we have done in the past, CNN will ask the audience to be respectful of the candidates,” a CNN spokesperson said. “We have always said that if audience reaction such as shouting or booing interferes with the debate or with the candidates’ answers, we will ask the audience to refrain.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/cnn-will-allow-applause-a_n_1228430.html?ref=media

  • DonS

    Bob @ 43: You are gracious 🙂

    We’re debating serious issues, and you and I almost always have a different take on them, but the bottom line is they are all temporal. It’s nice when we can step back and just enjoy the discussion and the fellowship every once in a while.

  • DonS

    Bob @ 43: You are gracious 🙂

    We’re debating serious issues, and you and I almost always have a different take on them, but the bottom line is they are all temporal. It’s nice when we can step back and just enjoy the discussion and the fellowship every once in a while.

  • Tom Hering

    Uh, Grace, you did notice, didn’t you, that CNN is simply saying it will allow what it’s always allowed, and won’t allow what it’s always disallowed? How is this a response to Newt bawling and stomping his feet?

  • Tom Hering

    Uh, Grace, you did notice, didn’t you, that CNN is simply saying it will allow what it’s always allowed, and won’t allow what it’s always disallowed? How is this a response to Newt bawling and stomping his feet?

  • DonS

    As to the applause issue, there will be no applause allowed during the general election presidential debates. I think that is a good thing, because campaigns try to stack the rooms one way or the other with partisans, and the applause in those situations does not reflect anything other than pure partisanship, and is a serious distraction for those trying to evaluate the positions of the candidates without having to deal with a visceral emotional response to applause. Let’s have the debate, and we can each decide in our own living rooms what the applause lines are for us. It is definitely to the advantage of the Republican party that primary voter response is not distorted by debate applause, particularly when that applause cannot play a role in the general election.

  • DonS

    As to the applause issue, there will be no applause allowed during the general election presidential debates. I think that is a good thing, because campaigns try to stack the rooms one way or the other with partisans, and the applause in those situations does not reflect anything other than pure partisanship, and is a serious distraction for those trying to evaluate the positions of the candidates without having to deal with a visceral emotional response to applause. Let’s have the debate, and we can each decide in our own living rooms what the applause lines are for us. It is definitely to the advantage of the Republican party that primary voter response is not distorted by debate applause, particularly when that applause cannot play a role in the general election.

  • DonS

    Noel @ 49: Thanks for your thoughtful input. I think we conservatives need to understand that your views, and response to current issues, is reflective of those of a significant percentage of the population. It is important for us to explain and support our positions regarding spending vs. taxes better — with more data and less emotion — as well as all of the other individual liberty concerns that we have with the direction of the current administration.

    I hope you stick around for the discussion this year, and I hope that we make it worth your while to do so. This election will definitely be important for our future as a nation.

  • DonS

    Noel @ 49: Thanks for your thoughtful input. I think we conservatives need to understand that your views, and response to current issues, is reflective of those of a significant percentage of the population. It is important for us to explain and support our positions regarding spending vs. taxes better — with more data and less emotion — as well as all of the other individual liberty concerns that we have with the direction of the current administration.

    I hope you stick around for the discussion this year, and I hope that we make it worth your while to do so. This election will definitely be important for our future as a nation.

  • Dust

    Klasie….please don’t fret about an original thought from me, nor any comment that would impress you, and am sure of it! Hopefully this will set your mind at ease, and give you peace in your heart 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Klasie….please don’t fret about an original thought from me, nor any comment that would impress you, and am sure of it! Hopefully this will set your mind at ease, and give you peace in your heart 🙂

    cheers!

  • DonS mentioned how they (@53):

    stack the rooms one way or the other with partisans, and the applause in those situations does not reflect anything other than pure partisanship, and is a serious distraction for those trying to evaluate the positions of the candidates without having to deal with a visceral emotional response to applause.

    Wait, are you talking about the State of the Union? 😉

    NB: I didn’t actually watch last night’s SOTU, so I don’t know if the ad nauseam applauseam took place, but in every other SOTU I’ve watched, it does, and it’s ridiculous.

  • DonS mentioned how they (@53):

    stack the rooms one way or the other with partisans, and the applause in those situations does not reflect anything other than pure partisanship, and is a serious distraction for those trying to evaluate the positions of the candidates without having to deal with a visceral emotional response to applause.

    Wait, are you talking about the State of the Union? 😉

    NB: I didn’t actually watch last night’s SOTU, so I don’t know if the ad nauseam applauseam took place, but in every other SOTU I’ve watched, it does, and it’s ridiculous.

  • Tom Hering

    For most of the speech, most Republicans sat quietly. But they managed to applaud once in a while – whenever it was time to show our nation’s enemies how united we are. 😀

  • Tom Hering

    For most of the speech, most Republicans sat quietly. But they managed to applaud once in a while – whenever it was time to show our nation’s enemies how united we are. 😀

  • SKPeterson

    Yes, Todd. It was the same tried and true formula.

    Platitude, platitude, platitude. Pause. Unwarranted applause. Repeat 50 times. God Bless America. Someone turn out the lights.

  • SKPeterson

    Yes, Todd. It was the same tried and true formula.

    Platitude, platitude, platitude. Pause. Unwarranted applause. Repeat 50 times. God Bless America. Someone turn out the lights.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, I forgot the “Opposition Response.” It goes like this:

    Deny platitude, deny platitude, insert alternate platitude. Take breath. Gratuitous insult. We truly have your interests at heart. God Bless America. Back to you in New York.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, I forgot the “Opposition Response.” It goes like this:

    Deny platitude, deny platitude, insert alternate platitude. Take breath. Gratuitous insult. We truly have your interests at heart. God Bless America. Back to you in New York.

  • Tom Hering

    Was there a need for an opposition response? What with all the Republican prebuttals [sic] earlier in the day?

  • Tom Hering

    Was there a need for an opposition response? What with all the Republican prebuttals [sic] earlier in the day?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 56: Ha — good point. My comments apply equally to the SOTU.

    Knowing the applause is coming from politicians, rather than supposed ordinary voters however, the visceral response is a bit different 😉

  • DonS

    tODD @ 56: Ha — good point. My comments apply equally to the SOTU.

    Knowing the applause is coming from politicians, rather than supposed ordinary voters however, the visceral response is a bit different 😉

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, most definitely, Tom. Without an opposition response We the People are deprived of the full panoply of hyperbole, fancy and blinkered thinking that a combined State of the Union with Opposition Response provides. The demands of representative democracy to inform the people of the hubris, disconnection and perpetual self-absorption of most of our national political class must be satisfied. Over and over. Ad nauseam.

    See you next year for a repeat of last night’s performance no matter what the outcome is in November. There can be no deviation from the script.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, most definitely, Tom. Without an opposition response We the People are deprived of the full panoply of hyperbole, fancy and blinkered thinking that a combined State of the Union with Opposition Response provides. The demands of representative democracy to inform the people of the hubris, disconnection and perpetual self-absorption of most of our national political class must be satisfied. Over and over. Ad nauseam.

    See you next year for a repeat of last night’s performance no matter what the outcome is in November. There can be no deviation from the script.

  • DonS

    Actually, SKP @ 62, one incentive to not re-elect Obama is to avoid a SOTU address next year, as newly-inaugurated first term presidents don’t give one. Yeah, I know, they still tend to give a first-year speech to a joint session of Congress, but it’s a little later in the year and it’s not labeled a SOTU. So, that’s something.

  • DonS

    Actually, SKP @ 62, one incentive to not re-elect Obama is to avoid a SOTU address next year, as newly-inaugurated first term presidents don’t give one. Yeah, I know, they still tend to give a first-year speech to a joint session of Congress, but it’s a little later in the year and it’s not labeled a SOTU. So, that’s something.

  • Bob

    DonS, thanks for your comment #51. I agree.

    Noel #49
    ‘I actually came away feeling President Obama as more middle of the road that either party.’

    Pres. Obama IS middle of the road. He’s a pragmatic MOR-liberal.

    I guess all the righties figured that if he wasn’t all white, he must be a dangerous leftie. Kind of racist if you think about it. And downright stupid. I’ve never seen as much BS and horse manure as has been tossed at this man in my entire life.

    Just keep it up. Keep extending the rope.

  • Bob

    DonS, thanks for your comment #51. I agree.

    Noel #49
    ‘I actually came away feeling President Obama as more middle of the road that either party.’

    Pres. Obama IS middle of the road. He’s a pragmatic MOR-liberal.

    I guess all the righties figured that if he wasn’t all white, he must be a dangerous leftie. Kind of racist if you think about it. And downright stupid. I’ve never seen as much BS and horse manure as has been tossed at this man in my entire life.

    Just keep it up. Keep extending the rope.

  • –helen

    Cincinnatus @ 11
    Even Romney knows that it’s silly that he paid less than 15% on his 21 million dollars in income last year.

    He won’t give it up, or give up trying to make it lower, though.

  • –helen

    Cincinnatus @ 11
    Even Romney knows that it’s silly that he paid less than 15% on his 21 million dollars in income last year.

    He won’t give it up, or give up trying to make it lower, though.

  • Tom Hering

    “I’ve never seen as much BS and horse manure …”

    Governor Walker will be giving his State Of The State tonight, Bob. (Okay, okay, Dr, Veith – that’s the only time I’ll speak of Wisconsin politics in this thread. 😀 )

  • Tom Hering

    “I’ve never seen as much BS and horse manure …”

    Governor Walker will be giving his State Of The State tonight, Bob. (Okay, okay, Dr, Veith – that’s the only time I’ll speak of Wisconsin politics in this thread. 😀 )

  • Grace

    Bob @ 64

    “I guess all the righties figured that if he wasn’t all white, he must be a dangerous leftie. Kind of racist if you think about it.”

    All black, all white, or half and half has nothing to do with it. Your remark is pure RACIST! No one here has mentioned color or race. So …… “YOU THINK ABOUT IT” !

  • Grace

    Bob @ 64

    “I guess all the righties figured that if he wasn’t all white, he must be a dangerous leftie. Kind of racist if you think about it.”

    All black, all white, or half and half has nothing to do with it. Your remark is pure RACIST! No one here has mentioned color or race. So …… “YOU THINK ABOUT IT” !

  • SKPeterson

    Bob @ 64. Nobody here is referring to Obama as a leftie because of his race. You’re attempting to smear any opposition to the man’s politics as being racially motivated. That is BS.

    His politics (I mean c’mon, Obama’s a Chicago pol) are described as leftist because they are. Any tacking to the center he has done has been entirely in response to a right-of-center Republican House that has forced him to put the brakes on. But, when the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, I don’t recall much restraint on forging full steam ahead on implementing a whole host of leftie pet projects. And two whities, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are just as left and just as responsible as Obama.

  • SKPeterson

    Bob @ 64. Nobody here is referring to Obama as a leftie because of his race. You’re attempting to smear any opposition to the man’s politics as being racially motivated. That is BS.

    His politics (I mean c’mon, Obama’s a Chicago pol) are described as leftist because they are. Any tacking to the center he has done has been entirely in response to a right-of-center Republican House that has forced him to put the brakes on. But, when the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, I don’t recall much restraint on forging full steam ahead on implementing a whole host of leftie pet projects. And two whities, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are just as left and just as responsible as Obama.

  • Cincinnatus

    Mark this day. I agree with Grace@67.

  • Cincinnatus

    Mark this day. I agree with Grace@67.

  • No, no, Grace and SKP. Bob played the Race Card. Y’all’ve been trumped. Give it up. Retreat in shame.

  • No, no, Grace and SKP. Bob played the Race Card. Y’all’ve been trumped. Give it up. Retreat in shame.

  • SKPeterson

    Thank you , Tom. We’ve been spared Green Bay in the Super Bowl which can only be described as the Providence of God. The last thing we need is to revisit the cesspool of parochial Wisconsin politics as emblem of functional American democracy.

  • SKPeterson

    Thank you , Tom. We’ve been spared Green Bay in the Super Bowl which can only be described as the Providence of God. The last thing we need is to revisit the cesspool of parochial Wisconsin politics as emblem of functional American democracy.

  • Tom Hering

    Not a leftie, Bob. Just a food stamp President. And all that that implies. 😀

  • Tom Hering

    Not a leftie, Bob. Just a food stamp President. And all that that implies. 😀

  • DonS

    Sheesh, Bob @ 64. We have a moment and then you play the race card?

  • DonS

    Sheesh, Bob @ 64. We have a moment and then you play the race card?

  • Cincinnatus

    SKP:

    What do you mean by leftist? Nancy and Harry–bonified leftists. But the complaint I’m hearing from my leftist/progressive friends is that Obama is a milquetoast moderate. I would go further: he’s a deeply compromised corporatist no better (in fact, probably worse on this front) than his predecessor. His term in office has been quite lucrative for the automotive, banking, and insurance industries, among others.

    So I agree with you in part. I think, on a personal level, Obama is one of the more leftist Presidents we’ve had. And some of his more behind-the-scenes decisions are reflective of that (cf.: recent decisions regarding mandatory contraception coverage or his politicization of the Justice Department). But, while his landmark policies–the bailout, healthcare “reform,” etc.–are pro-big-business and pro-big-government, they aren’t discernibly leftist, are they? At least not in any way that would distinguish him meaningfully from the out-party. Whether that’s because he’s been tempered by Republican House or because he is, in fact, milquetoast, I don’t know. But all in all, he’s just a mediocre repeat of what we’ve had for the past 20 years at least.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKP:

    What do you mean by leftist? Nancy and Harry–bonified leftists. But the complaint I’m hearing from my leftist/progressive friends is that Obama is a milquetoast moderate. I would go further: he’s a deeply compromised corporatist no better (in fact, probably worse on this front) than his predecessor. His term in office has been quite lucrative for the automotive, banking, and insurance industries, among others.

    So I agree with you in part. I think, on a personal level, Obama is one of the more leftist Presidents we’ve had. And some of his more behind-the-scenes decisions are reflective of that (cf.: recent decisions regarding mandatory contraception coverage or his politicization of the Justice Department). But, while his landmark policies–the bailout, healthcare “reform,” etc.–are pro-big-business and pro-big-government, they aren’t discernibly leftist, are they? At least not in any way that would distinguish him meaningfully from the out-party. Whether that’s because he’s been tempered by Republican House or because he is, in fact, milquetoast, I don’t know. But all in all, he’s just a mediocre repeat of what we’ve had for the past 20 years at least.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 69

    I can’t have it! You agreeing with ME? 😆 I think the last time was last year, months ago. 😉

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 69

    I can’t have it! You agreeing with ME? 😆 I think the last time was last year, months ago. 😉

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, tell your friends they’re milquetoast progressives. Chris Hedges, a genuine leftist, goes as gar as you do in your critique. And I think you’re both correct in your assessment.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, tell your friends they’re milquetoast progressives. Chris Hedges, a genuine leftist, goes as gar as you do in your critique. And I think you’re both correct in your assessment.

  • Tom Hering

    Re: @ 76: “goes as far as you do …”

  • Tom Hering

    Re: @ 76: “goes as far as you do …”

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus @ 74 – I can see your point and agree. I’m not convinced though that leftism, or rather Obama-style leftism which is really rehashed FDR-leftism, is anti-big business. It is anti-big business competition, and to some extent, anti-profit. Unless those profits can be allocated by political patronage as in cases of the banks, auto industry, pharma, etc.

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus @ 74 – I can see your point and agree. I’m not convinced though that leftism, or rather Obama-style leftism which is really rehashed FDR-leftism, is anti-big business. It is anti-big business competition, and to some extent, anti-profit. Unless those profits can be allocated by political patronage as in cases of the banks, auto industry, pharma, etc.

  • SAL

    I watched the first part of speech and my reaction was two-fold.

    1) Much of what he’s proposing seems to be from previous SOTUs. That makes me suspicious of his sincerity bringing up the same old proposals when they’re less likely to pass than in 2009 or 2010.

    2) The tone and rhetoric (of the part I watched) was vastly different from the “hectoring professor” shtick that Obama typically uses with broad audiences. Typically I can’t listen to Obama because his tone is grating, triumphalist and preachy. The first section seemed to have a tone of restraint and civility that is uncommon in Obama’s speechifying.

    I didn’t get to watch the second half as I grew tired of his litany of new proposals for government control and action. The exaggerated frequent clapping and cheering really diminished the seriousness of the event. I appreciated when Obama cut the cheering short a couple times.

    I think if we’re going to permit clapping and cheering than we ought to permit moderate jeering (ala “You lie”) and booing. That would be more consistent with the balanced vocal tone of Prime Minister’s Questions.

  • SAL

    I watched the first part of speech and my reaction was two-fold.

    1) Much of what he’s proposing seems to be from previous SOTUs. That makes me suspicious of his sincerity bringing up the same old proposals when they’re less likely to pass than in 2009 or 2010.

    2) The tone and rhetoric (of the part I watched) was vastly different from the “hectoring professor” shtick that Obama typically uses with broad audiences. Typically I can’t listen to Obama because his tone is grating, triumphalist and preachy. The first section seemed to have a tone of restraint and civility that is uncommon in Obama’s speechifying.

    I didn’t get to watch the second half as I grew tired of his litany of new proposals for government control and action. The exaggerated frequent clapping and cheering really diminished the seriousness of the event. I appreciated when Obama cut the cheering short a couple times.

    I think if we’re going to permit clapping and cheering than we ought to permit moderate jeering (ala “You lie”) and booing. That would be more consistent with the balanced vocal tone of Prime Minister’s Questions.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKP@78:

    Right, well I honestly don’t know any progressives who oppose big business as such. They oppose various alleged aspects of big business: their apparent ability to “buy” elections (which is actually a myth, empirically speaking), their status as “persons” according to constitutional law, their rumored affiliation with the Republican party (another myth). But none of them would actually call for Google or Apple or Whole Foods to be broken up, de-subsidized, or otherwise limited by the government (Wal-Mart, maybe, since conservatives shop there sometimes).

    I’m anti-big-business. I guess I’m the true radical/progressive. In any case, Obama is not. And of course, let it be noted that the only candidate–or, really, prominent member–of either major party who is even remotely skeptical of big business in general is Ron Paul.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKP@78:

    Right, well I honestly don’t know any progressives who oppose big business as such. They oppose various alleged aspects of big business: their apparent ability to “buy” elections (which is actually a myth, empirically speaking), their status as “persons” according to constitutional law, their rumored affiliation with the Republican party (another myth). But none of them would actually call for Google or Apple or Whole Foods to be broken up, de-subsidized, or otherwise limited by the government (Wal-Mart, maybe, since conservatives shop there sometimes).

    I’m anti-big-business. I guess I’m the true radical/progressive. In any case, Obama is not. And of course, let it be noted that the only candidate–or, really, prominent member–of either major party who is even remotely skeptical of big business in general is Ron Paul.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus,
    No, many con’s are accusing him of going soft on Iran. Neocons, I guess. And military-industrial lobbyist con’s. Like some here :). Paleocons like you, no. “Isolationists” and Libertarians – no.

    DonS – my point was that very few people here ever even attempt to give credit were credit is due. It is just endless partisan yacking. Of course, some of the subsequent comments did prove that that is not always the case, which was welcome.

    Dust, you really need to learn to stop acting like a blackfly. If you knew anything about the Boreal Forest, you’d understand what I’m saying.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus,
    No, many con’s are accusing him of going soft on Iran. Neocons, I guess. And military-industrial lobbyist con’s. Like some here :). Paleocons like you, no. “Isolationists” and Libertarians – no.

    DonS – my point was that very few people here ever even attempt to give credit were credit is due. It is just endless partisan yacking. Of course, some of the subsequent comments did prove that that is not always the case, which was welcome.

    Dust, you really need to learn to stop acting like a blackfly. If you knew anything about the Boreal Forest, you’d understand what I’m saying.

  • DonS

    Unfortunately, big business is often a tool for the advancement of leftism. The tradeoff for big business is less competition in the marketplace, because of the barriers to entry the cabal of big business and big government establish through the byzantine regulations they work together to impose. Because they tend to be heavily unionized and otherwise uncompetitive, they are happy to seek any opportunity to put roadblocks in front of more nimble small businesses they find threatening. The idea that “big business” is Republican is ridiculous. They will support whoever is in power, and most large corporations, through their employees and PAC’s contribute roughly equal sums to both parties, with a leaning toward whichever party is in power. IT companies tend to be more Democratic and pharmaceutical companies tend to be more Republican, but generally you will find this rule of thumb to be so.

    The worst of all offenders are those the most co-opted by government, such as utilities and insurance companies. They tend to be regulated to a guaranteed profit of a specified percentage of gross revenues, which was the most stupid concept ever invented. Talk about an incentive to increase pricing! No wonder the utility costs that so damage the prospects of middle and lower income families are skyrocketing! 4% of a $200 monthly bill is a lot better than 4% of a $100 monthly bill, isn’t it? Public utility regulation = idiocy.

    So, Cincinnatus, the bottom line is that I am also anti-big business as a rule of thumb. Of course, the solution to big business is NOT more regulation (eg Sherman Act), but less regulation so that small business can effectively compete and make the big businesses smaller as a result.

  • DonS

    Unfortunately, big business is often a tool for the advancement of leftism. The tradeoff for big business is less competition in the marketplace, because of the barriers to entry the cabal of big business and big government establish through the byzantine regulations they work together to impose. Because they tend to be heavily unionized and otherwise uncompetitive, they are happy to seek any opportunity to put roadblocks in front of more nimble small businesses they find threatening. The idea that “big business” is Republican is ridiculous. They will support whoever is in power, and most large corporations, through their employees and PAC’s contribute roughly equal sums to both parties, with a leaning toward whichever party is in power. IT companies tend to be more Democratic and pharmaceutical companies tend to be more Republican, but generally you will find this rule of thumb to be so.

    The worst of all offenders are those the most co-opted by government, such as utilities and insurance companies. They tend to be regulated to a guaranteed profit of a specified percentage of gross revenues, which was the most stupid concept ever invented. Talk about an incentive to increase pricing! No wonder the utility costs that so damage the prospects of middle and lower income families are skyrocketing! 4% of a $200 monthly bill is a lot better than 4% of a $100 monthly bill, isn’t it? Public utility regulation = idiocy.

    So, Cincinnatus, the bottom line is that I am also anti-big business as a rule of thumb. Of course, the solution to big business is NOT more regulation (eg Sherman Act), but less regulation so that small business can effectively compete and make the big businesses smaller as a result.

  • Bob

    Nice to know my comments have united all the righties and Obama haters on here. Wait, that’s redundant.

    ‘I think, on a personal level, Obama is one of the more leftist Presidents we’ve had.’

    Well, C, your personal feelings are your personal feelings. They certainly don’t reflect the country’s feelings about President Obama. Congratulations — you’re in the 9 percent.

    “According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president’s address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029581-503544.html

  • Bob

    Nice to know my comments have united all the righties and Obama haters on here. Wait, that’s redundant.

    ‘I think, on a personal level, Obama is one of the more leftist Presidents we’ve had.’

    Well, C, your personal feelings are your personal feelings. They certainly don’t reflect the country’s feelings about President Obama. Congratulations — you’re in the 9 percent.

    “According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president’s address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029581-503544.html

  • DonS

    Klasie @ 81: Thanks for clarifying. I will give Obama credit, so far, for being a lot more willing to assert legitimate U.S. interests using the military than I thought he would be. Rescuing those hostage aid workers, one of whom was American, was one of the reasons we have a military — to protect Americans and their interests overseas. Osama bin laden was a good get, and he has done a good job in Afghanistan to date. Not sure why we involved ourselves in Libya though. Let Europe fight its own battles — they’re certainly not going to fight ours.

    His domestic policies — another matter. Simply an unmitigated disaster.

  • DonS

    Klasie @ 81: Thanks for clarifying. I will give Obama credit, so far, for being a lot more willing to assert legitimate U.S. interests using the military than I thought he would be. Rescuing those hostage aid workers, one of whom was American, was one of the reasons we have a military — to protect Americans and their interests overseas. Osama bin laden was a good get, and he has done a good job in Afghanistan to date. Not sure why we involved ourselves in Libya though. Let Europe fight its own battles — they’re certainly not going to fight ours.

    His domestic policies — another matter. Simply an unmitigated disaster.

  • Cincinnatus

    Bob@83: I take it you neither read nor comprehended the entirety of my comment to which you are responding.

  • Cincinnatus

    Bob@83: I take it you neither read nor comprehended the entirety of my comment to which you are responding.

  • Jon

    Obama, apparently, will never win the affection of America’s Christians until he starts sleeping around.

  • Jon

    Obama, apparently, will never win the affection of America’s Christians until he starts sleeping around.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 86: You must see it as your role to think of the most irrelevant and silly thing to say. Congratulations on another successful comment.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 86: You must see it as your role to think of the most irrelevant and silly thing to say. Congratulations on another successful comment.

  • SAL

    One of the biggest barriers to small business is litigation. The law and court systems impose significant costs on smaller businesses.

    Often with the complex tax code the effective tax rate for small businesses can be smaller than liability insurance and other precautionary tools to protect against lawyers and their courts.

  • SAL

    One of the biggest barriers to small business is litigation. The law and court systems impose significant costs on smaller businesses.

    Often with the complex tax code the effective tax rate for small businesses can be smaller than liability insurance and other precautionary tools to protect against lawyers and their courts.

  • Jon

    @86 I love you.

  • Jon

    @86 I love you.

  • SAL

    #89 Self-love?

    Incurvatus in se

  • SAL

    #89 Self-love?

    Incurvatus in se

  • Tom Hering

    Jon @ 86, only if he follows up with the assertion he’s been forgiven by God. Because he now offers an Act of Contrition while praying the Rosary. That’s always popular with Evangelicals.

  • Tom Hering

    Jon @ 86, only if he follows up with the assertion he’s been forgiven by God. Because he now offers an Act of Contrition while praying the Rosary. That’s always popular with Evangelicals.

  • SKPeterson

    Bob – I generally don’t think about Obama often, and certainly not so much to hate him. I hold him in about the same regard as I held his predecessor – not very highly, but also unobsessively. I don’t really care about the man himself – he’s probably a great guy to be around, except for his basketball fixation and penchant for looking like a goof when he rides a bike. I’m simply opposed to his policies, or at least most of them. Okay, yeah pretty much the whole lot. I was also opposed to most of GW’s policies, probably a little less so than Obama’s but not by much. As I’ve often said on this forum (and was recently castigated for by DonS, if I recall correctly) I don’t think there’s a dime’s worth of difference between the current and previous administration. No wait, I said that about Romney and Obama, I think. So much tawdry sameness. We really need to invade Canada to relieve the tedium of this campaign season. I bet there are Taliban all over Moose Jaw.

  • SKPeterson

    Bob – I generally don’t think about Obama often, and certainly not so much to hate him. I hold him in about the same regard as I held his predecessor – not very highly, but also unobsessively. I don’t really care about the man himself – he’s probably a great guy to be around, except for his basketball fixation and penchant for looking like a goof when he rides a bike. I’m simply opposed to his policies, or at least most of them. Okay, yeah pretty much the whole lot. I was also opposed to most of GW’s policies, probably a little less so than Obama’s but not by much. As I’ve often said on this forum (and was recently castigated for by DonS, if I recall correctly) I don’t think there’s a dime’s worth of difference between the current and previous administration. No wait, I said that about Romney and Obama, I think. So much tawdry sameness. We really need to invade Canada to relieve the tedium of this campaign season. I bet there are Taliban all over Moose Jaw.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKPeterson@92: Seconded.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKPeterson@92: Seconded.

  • DonS

    @ 89 — well, you’ve topped yourself — although modern psychologists certainly applaud self-love as a mentally healthy emotional state.

  • DonS

    @ 89 — well, you’ve topped yourself — although modern psychologists certainly applaud self-love as a mentally healthy emotional state.

  • Tom Hering

    SK @ 92, maybe Seal Team Six could go in and bring back Randy Quaid to face justice at the hands of the Hollywood Star Whackers.

  • Tom Hering

    SK @ 92, maybe Seal Team Six could go in and bring back Randy Quaid to face justice at the hands of the Hollywood Star Whackers.

  • kerner

    Hello all!

    Well, Klasie, like DonS, I’ll give Obama credit where it’s due on the use of our military. He’s managed some successes, and the wars he has gotten us into, he has waged in such a way as to incur no casualties. Some of his choises concern me. He helped topple Qadafi, to have him be replaced by…what? We’ll see, I guess

    But his desire to turn the US into a European style socialist state is hard to get around. And he seems to want to block any course of action that might result in private industry creating jobs. He won’t even let you Canadians build a pipeline to ship your oil down here. So, you’ll sell it all to the Chinese.

    I really think that one of his greater motivations is a sincere belief that it is unfair for the US to be so economically and technologically ahead of the rest of the world. I think he literally wants us to stop and wait for everybody else to catch up. I’m not sure how else to explain him.

  • kerner

    Hello all!

    Well, Klasie, like DonS, I’ll give Obama credit where it’s due on the use of our military. He’s managed some successes, and the wars he has gotten us into, he has waged in such a way as to incur no casualties. Some of his choises concern me. He helped topple Qadafi, to have him be replaced by…what? We’ll see, I guess

    But his desire to turn the US into a European style socialist state is hard to get around. And he seems to want to block any course of action that might result in private industry creating jobs. He won’t even let you Canadians build a pipeline to ship your oil down here. So, you’ll sell it all to the Chinese.

    I really think that one of his greater motivations is a sincere belief that it is unfair for the US to be so economically and technologically ahead of the rest of the world. I think he literally wants us to stop and wait for everybody else to catch up. I’m not sure how else to explain him.

  • Dust

    Klasie….will take your advice under consideration, if you do the same re: my comparison of you to the Don Quixote of Cranach 🙂

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Klasie….will take your advice under consideration, if you do the same re: my comparison of you to the Don Quixote of Cranach 🙂

    Cheers!

  • SKPeterson

    Silly Dust – Everyone knows there are no windmills in Canada. Just Moose Jaw Taliban.

  • SKPeterson

    Silly Dust – Everyone knows there are no windmills in Canada. Just Moose Jaw Taliban.

  • Tom Hering

    Anyone else want comment 100?

  • Tom Hering

    Anyone else want comment 100?

  • Tom Hering

    No? Okay then.

  • Tom Hering

    No? Okay then.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, Don Quixote tilted at windmills etc because he was a silly romantic. But everytime I write here, you come up with some stupid,n imbecilic remark trying your hardest to sound witty, but generally showing off a third rate intelligence and a sense of humour that would not get a laugh in a pub filled with drunken first years. Just lay off it now, will you? It is no longer funny, and thoroughly irritating.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, Don Quixote tilted at windmills etc because he was a silly romantic. But everytime I write here, you come up with some stupid,n imbecilic remark trying your hardest to sound witty, but generally showing off a third rate intelligence and a sense of humour that would not get a laugh in a pub filled with drunken first years. Just lay off it now, will you? It is no longer funny, and thoroughly irritating.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – the pipeline thing is just politics. Delaying tactics for the elections’ sake. And even if the pipeline gets built, the effort to build a pipeline to the coast for exports to Asia (nor just China) will likely go ahead – customer diversification is important.

    And the word “socialist” in your second paragraph is way too inflammatory nowadays – most “capitalist” countries have some sort of government medical care, from. The UK’s NHS to Canada’s single payer system rub entirely by the provinces. Many of these countries have economies with better economic data than the US – see Germany and Canada. Too much of this debate has become buried in partisan rhetoric.

    Also, your third paragraph is quite puzzling. Can you share the data on which you base this belief of yours?

    BTW, I am not an Obama supporter. But I am not a believer in any type of de fact partisan position.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – the pipeline thing is just politics. Delaying tactics for the elections’ sake. And even if the pipeline gets built, the effort to build a pipeline to the coast for exports to Asia (nor just China) will likely go ahead – customer diversification is important.

    And the word “socialist” in your second paragraph is way too inflammatory nowadays – most “capitalist” countries have some sort of government medical care, from. The UK’s NHS to Canada’s single payer system rub entirely by the provinces. Many of these countries have economies with better economic data than the US – see Germany and Canada. Too much of this debate has become buried in partisan rhetoric.

    Also, your third paragraph is quite puzzling. Can you share the data on which you base this belief of yours?

    BTW, I am not an Obama supporter. But I am not a believer in any type of de fact partisan position.

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 96

    “But his desire to turn the US into a European style socialist state is hard to get around. And he seems to want to block any course of action that might result in private industry creating jobs. He won’t even let you Canadians build a pipeline to ship your oil down here. So, you’ll sell it all to the Chinese.”

    Excellent point. It would create jobs for thousands, most likely 25,000 plus, not to mention the use of refineries in Texas. Obama is determined to stop any efforts to make this country independent from middle eastern countries and their oil.

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 96

    “But his desire to turn the US into a European style socialist state is hard to get around. And he seems to want to block any course of action that might result in private industry creating jobs. He won’t even let you Canadians build a pipeline to ship your oil down here. So, you’ll sell it all to the Chinese.”

    Excellent point. It would create jobs for thousands, most likely 25,000 plus, not to mention the use of refineries in Texas. Obama is determined to stop any efforts to make this country independent from middle eastern countries and their oil.

  • Grace

    Kraalogies @ 102

    “Kerner – the pipeline thing is just politics. Delaying tactics for the elections’ sake. And even if the pipeline gets built, the effort to build a pipeline to the coast for exports to Asia (nor just China) will likely go ahead – customer diversification is important.”

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Canada has the oil, we have the refineries. It would not only help Canada and the United States, it would create thousands of jobs. We need the independence from middle eastern oil.

  • Grace

    Kraalogies @ 102

    “Kerner – the pipeline thing is just politics. Delaying tactics for the elections’ sake. And even if the pipeline gets built, the effort to build a pipeline to the coast for exports to Asia (nor just China) will likely go ahead – customer diversification is important.”

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Canada has the oil, we have the refineries. It would not only help Canada and the United States, it would create thousands of jobs. We need the independence from middle eastern oil.

  • Grace

    Strange how Obama bucks a very good job producing plan, plus oil from our northern neighbors. Maybe it really isn’t so strange after all.

  • Grace

    Strange how Obama bucks a very good job producing plan, plus oil from our northern neighbors. Maybe it really isn’t so strange after all.

  • Grace

    Kraalogies @ 101

    “But everytime I write here, you come up with some stupid,n imbecilic remark trying your hardest to sound witty, but generally showing off a third rate intelligence and a sense of humour that would not get a laugh in a pub filled with drunken first years.

    If anyone is exhibing witless remarks, it’s you – the crude comments are not only false, but girlie girl – the kind of ‘snark speak, often screeched by young girls in high school locker rooms.

  • Grace

    Kraalogies @ 101

    “But everytime I write here, you come up with some stupid,n imbecilic remark trying your hardest to sound witty, but generally showing off a third rate intelligence and a sense of humour that would not get a laugh in a pub filled with drunken first years.

    If anyone is exhibing witless remarks, it’s you – the crude comments are not only false, but girlie girl – the kind of ‘snark speak, often screeched by young girls in high school locker rooms.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – Klaasie makes some good points regarding Canada. In many respects it is now more conservative than the U.S. despite its national health care system.

    Grace – You are forgetting that the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese all have refineries too. If they don’t send their oil to us via a pipeline to the Houston – Baton Rouge complex, the Canadians will build a pipeline to Prince Rupert and ship the oil to Asian refineries.

    Also, Canada and Mexico are our two largest suppliers of “foreign” oil. We don’t get that much from the Middle East. Our interests in keeping flows open in the Middle East is that it is a major supplier to Europe and elsewhere in Asia, and it has an impact on global oil supply. As a result, the free flow of oil has an impact on global oil prices, which we will pay whether we get oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, or Texas.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – Klaasie makes some good points regarding Canada. In many respects it is now more conservative than the U.S. despite its national health care system.

    Grace – You are forgetting that the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese all have refineries too. If they don’t send their oil to us via a pipeline to the Houston – Baton Rouge complex, the Canadians will build a pipeline to Prince Rupert and ship the oil to Asian refineries.

    Also, Canada and Mexico are our two largest suppliers of “foreign” oil. We don’t get that much from the Middle East. Our interests in keeping flows open in the Middle East is that it is a major supplier to Europe and elsewhere in Asia, and it has an impact on global oil supply. As a result, the free flow of oil has an impact on global oil prices, which we will pay whether we get oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, or Texas.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @107

    Information below comes from

    September 2011 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2011

    Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @107

    Information below comes from

    September 2011 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2011

    Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, “by just politics” I meant the refusal thereof. Of course it means jobs etc. See my post under Gene’s earlier post where he discussed Obama’s refussal of the pipeline. I happen to be a geologist, so I know more about these kinds of things than you can ever imagine.

    As to your second post, I won’t comment, except to say that you should take my advice to Dust.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, “by just politics” I meant the refusal thereof. Of course it means jobs etc. See my post under Gene’s earlier post where he discussed Obama’s refussal of the pipeline. I happen to be a geologist, so I know more about these kinds of things than you can ever imagine.

    As to your second post, I won’t comment, except to say that you should take my advice to Dust.

  • Grace
  • Grace
  • Grace

    ” I happen to be a geologist, so I know more about these kinds of things than you can ever imagine.”

    I don’t care what you CLAIM to be, your comments don’t FIT, it doesn’t ADD UP.

  • Grace

    ” I happen to be a geologist, so I know more about these kinds of things than you can ever imagine.”

    I don’t care what you CLAIM to be, your comments don’t FIT, it doesn’t ADD UP.

  • Grace

    My post @ 111 should have read as follows:

    Kraalogies @ 109

    ” I happen to be a geologist, so I know more about these kinds of things than you can ever imagine.”

    I don’t care what you CLAIM to be, your comments don’t FIT, it doesn’t ADD UP.

  • Grace

    My post @ 111 should have read as follows:

    Kraalogies @ 109

    ” I happen to be a geologist, so I know more about these kinds of things than you can ever imagine.”

    I don’t care what you CLAIM to be, your comments don’t FIT, it doesn’t ADD UP.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, that’s much clearer.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, that’s much clearer.

  • Tom Hering

    Sorry, my post @ 113 should have read:

    Well, that’s much clearer.

  • Tom Hering

    Sorry, my post @ 113 should have read:

    Well, that’s much clearer.

  • Tom Hering

    I still didn’t get the bolding right. One more time:

    Well, that’s much clearer.

  • Tom Hering

    I still didn’t get the bolding right. One more time:

    Well, that’s much clearer.

  • Dust

    to Tom above, everytime I write here, you come up with some stupid,n imbecilic remark trying your hardest to sound witty, but generally showing off a third rate intelligence and a sense of humour that would not get a laugh in a pub filled with drunken first years. Just lay off it now, will you? It is no longer funny, and thoroughly irritating.

    cheers!

  • Dust

    to Tom above, everytime I write here, you come up with some stupid,n imbecilic remark trying your hardest to sound witty, but generally showing off a third rate intelligence and a sense of humour that would not get a laugh in a pub filled with drunken first years. Just lay off it now, will you? It is no longer funny, and thoroughly irritating.

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Ah, Grace, reading comprehension never was your strong point, eh? I’ll skip over the personal insult.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Ah, Grace, reading comprehension never was your strong point, eh? I’ll skip over the personal insult.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Wow, it is not often that one’s statements are so cleary and quickly proven. Thank you, Dust.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Wow, it is not often that one’s statements are so cleary and quickly proven. Thank you, Dust.

  • Michael B.

    @Klasie
    “And the word “socialist” in your second paragraph is way too inflammatory nowadays – most “capitalist” countries have some sort of government medical care, from. The UK’s NHS to Canada’s single payer system rub entirely by the provinces”

    Agreed. Most people, even Republicans, accept a great amount of government say in business as totally normal. As an interesting aside, I had a great grandfather who ran as a candidate for the US Socialist Party, and while much of their platform seemed extreme at the time, today it is commonly accepted even among Republicans: Medicare, public schools, safe working environment, no discrimination against women or mothers, an income tax, very limited child labor, etc.

  • Michael B.

    @Klasie
    “And the word “socialist” in your second paragraph is way too inflammatory nowadays – most “capitalist” countries have some sort of government medical care, from. The UK’s NHS to Canada’s single payer system rub entirely by the provinces”

    Agreed. Most people, even Republicans, accept a great amount of government say in business as totally normal. As an interesting aside, I had a great grandfather who ran as a candidate for the US Socialist Party, and while much of their platform seemed extreme at the time, today it is commonly accepted even among Republicans: Medicare, public schools, safe working environment, no discrimination against women or mothers, an income tax, very limited child labor, etc.

  • Tom Hering

    It’s Michael B’s great grandfather’s fault!

  • Tom Hering

    It’s Michael B’s great grandfather’s fault!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Michael, exactly. People have such short memories.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Michael, exactly. People have such short memories.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Last word to Dust: I really meant what I said, even though I was very sarcastic. Please stop it.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Last word to Dust: I really meant what I said, even though I was very sarcastic. Please stop it.

  • Dust

    Klasie…ok, will stop 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Klasie…ok, will stop 🙂

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust @123, thanks.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust @123, thanks.

  • Booklover

    Thank you SAL @79 for answering Dr. Veith’s questions.

    Bob @ 64: So you were against Sarah Palin simply because she’s a woman? You’re a FEMALE-o-PHOBE???

  • Booklover

    Thank you SAL @79 for answering Dr. Veith’s questions.

    Bob @ 64: So you were against Sarah Palin simply because she’s a woman? You’re a FEMALE-o-PHOBE???

  • SAL

    I suppose I’m a bit radical because I think Medicare and public schools are antiquated 20th century institutions that are approaching the end of their usefulness.

    Government-funded passenger trains are another throwback to the 19th century that baffles me. How is that considered innovative and futuristic when its severe limitations are what necessitated moving beyond it 50 years ago?

    How can people promote such “solutions” without being regarded as a type of Luddite?

    My main beef with liberals and “progressives” is that they seem so regressive when they’re firmly planted in the new ideas of 1930-1970. If those ideas even made sense for that era what are the odds they’d still work in the vastly different modern world?

    Conservatives could at least perform the useful role of ending the old order in anticipation of a new one. Liberals seems obsessed with the same solutions to the perceived problems of the 1950’s.

  • SAL

    I suppose I’m a bit radical because I think Medicare and public schools are antiquated 20th century institutions that are approaching the end of their usefulness.

    Government-funded passenger trains are another throwback to the 19th century that baffles me. How is that considered innovative and futuristic when its severe limitations are what necessitated moving beyond it 50 years ago?

    How can people promote such “solutions” without being regarded as a type of Luddite?

    My main beef with liberals and “progressives” is that they seem so regressive when they’re firmly planted in the new ideas of 1930-1970. If those ideas even made sense for that era what are the odds they’d still work in the vastly different modern world?

    Conservatives could at least perform the useful role of ending the old order in anticipation of a new one. Liberals seems obsessed with the same solutions to the perceived problems of the 1950’s.

  • SK (@107), you said:

    Also, Canada and Mexico are our two largest suppliers of “foreign” oil. We don’t get that much from the Middle East.

    Fascinatingly, Grace actually pointed (@110) to some data that (somewhat) challenge this statement. Saudi Arabia’s output has definitely surpassed Mexico’s — recently, that is. Between March and April of 2011, YTD imports of Saudi Arabia’s crude oil exceeded those of Mexico. Of course, if you look at all petroleum products, Mexico is still in second place, in terms of YTD imports (though Saudi Arabia was well ahead for the month of September).

    Of course, your second point still largely stands. Looking at YTD petroleum imports (the DOE site only lists the top 15 importers, but that’s well into the tail, anyhow), we got around 18% from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait) through September 2011. We’re far more in thrall to the Americas (60%) than we are to the Middle East.

  • SK (@107), you said:

    Also, Canada and Mexico are our two largest suppliers of “foreign” oil. We don’t get that much from the Middle East.

    Fascinatingly, Grace actually pointed (@110) to some data that (somewhat) challenge this statement. Saudi Arabia’s output has definitely surpassed Mexico’s — recently, that is. Between March and April of 2011, YTD imports of Saudi Arabia’s crude oil exceeded those of Mexico. Of course, if you look at all petroleum products, Mexico is still in second place, in terms of YTD imports (though Saudi Arabia was well ahead for the month of September).

    Of course, your second point still largely stands. Looking at YTD petroleum imports (the DOE site only lists the top 15 importers, but that’s well into the tail, anyhow), we got around 18% from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait) through September 2011. We’re far more in thrall to the Americas (60%) than we are to the Middle East.

  • Klasie (@101, etc.), you’re letting Dust get your goat. And Grace, too. God knows I’ve fallen prey to their tactics before, as well, but come on.

    I mean, just consider this comment of Grace’s (@106):

    If anyone is exhibing witless remarks, it’s you – the crude comments are not only false, but girlie girl – the kind of ‘snark speak, often screeched by young girls in high school locker rooms.

    You’re not going to let someone who writes and reasons like that upset you, are you? She can’t even close her single quotes! And she’s literally employing the “Nuh-uh, you are!” retort, beloved by those well below high-school age — as such, it’s clear that her comparing you to a high school girl should be taken as something of a respectful compliment, as being mentally superior to her grade-school tactics.

    Besides, she’s practically a truther! Or did no one else notice how she now questions whether Obama truly went to Harvard (@37)?

  • Klasie (@101, etc.), you’re letting Dust get your goat. And Grace, too. God knows I’ve fallen prey to their tactics before, as well, but come on.

    I mean, just consider this comment of Grace’s (@106):

    If anyone is exhibing witless remarks, it’s you – the crude comments are not only false, but girlie girl – the kind of ‘snark speak, often screeched by young girls in high school locker rooms.

    You’re not going to let someone who writes and reasons like that upset you, are you? She can’t even close her single quotes! And she’s literally employing the “Nuh-uh, you are!” retort, beloved by those well below high-school age — as such, it’s clear that her comparing you to a high school girl should be taken as something of a respectful compliment, as being mentally superior to her grade-school tactics.

    Besides, she’s practically a truther! Or did no one else notice how she now questions whether Obama truly went to Harvard (@37)?

  • Dust

    Assuming the America’s contribution to our oil addiction is 60% and the remainder comes from the Middle East (and other sources), that is still 40%…OK, so let’s give up the Middle East oil, no big deal 🙂

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Assuming the America’s contribution to our oil addiction is 60% and the remainder comes from the Middle East (and other sources), that is still 40%…OK, so let’s give up the Middle East oil, no big deal 🙂

    Cheers!

  • Dust (@129), what’s the point of reading half a comment? I said that 18% comes from the Middle East, not 40%.

  • Dust (@129), what’s the point of reading half a comment? I said that 18% comes from the Middle East, not 40%.

  • Dust

    tODD..ok, fair enough, and sorry….guess am feeling my oregon pinot 🙂

    anyways, so ok, let’s slow down the economy by 18%, does that make it better 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    tODD..ok, fair enough, and sorry….guess am feeling my oregon pinot 🙂

    anyways, so ok, let’s slow down the economy by 18%, does that make it better 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    oops…too many smiles, sorry 🙁

  • Dust

    oops…too many smiles, sorry 🙁

  • DonS
  • DonS
  • Dust

    DonS 🙂

  • Dust

    DonS 🙂

  • Grace

    tODD @ 128

    YOU WROTE: “Besides, she’s practically a truther! Or did no one else notice how she now questions whether Obama truly went to Harvard (@37)?

    Obama went to Harvard, no one questions his attendance, so don’t squirt mindless ink, pen to paper on that one. Obama has never made his papers public. Either he doesn’t want share these academic marvels, or there are only several, if any to “show and tell” – But somehow, Obama attended Harvard.

    Below are my remarks regarding Obama @ 37

    “My husband and I watched the State of the Union address. In a word? EMBARRASSING!

    Obama’s language skills are that of someone shouting on a corner, in short un-educated phrases. No wonder Obama has never released his grades or papers (if there are any) from Harvard, or elsewhere.

    tODD, you’ve done it again – you didn’t read carefully. Do you need spectacles? They come in all sizes, they even have tinted and colored frames, all very distinguished looking. 😉

  • Grace

    tODD @ 128

    YOU WROTE: “Besides, she’s practically a truther! Or did no one else notice how she now questions whether Obama truly went to Harvard (@37)?

    Obama went to Harvard, no one questions his attendance, so don’t squirt mindless ink, pen to paper on that one. Obama has never made his papers public. Either he doesn’t want share these academic marvels, or there are only several, if any to “show and tell” – But somehow, Obama attended Harvard.

    Below are my remarks regarding Obama @ 37

    “My husband and I watched the State of the Union address. In a word? EMBARRASSING!

    Obama’s language skills are that of someone shouting on a corner, in short un-educated phrases. No wonder Obama has never released his grades or papers (if there are any) from Harvard, or elsewhere.

    tODD, you’ve done it again – you didn’t read carefully. Do you need spectacles? They come in all sizes, they even have tinted and colored frames, all very distinguished looking. 😉

  • Grace

    tODD @ 128

    “You’re not going to let someone who writes and reasons like that upset you, are you? She can’t even close her single quotes! “

    “Single quotes” ? tODD, many writers, use the very same style. It just might not have come through to you, for whatever reason. It’s mostly used in print magazine and news. Style of writing has changed, you’ll get used to it. 😉

  • Grace

    tODD @ 128

    “You’re not going to let someone who writes and reasons like that upset you, are you? She can’t even close her single quotes! “

    “Single quotes” ? tODD, many writers, use the very same style. It just might not have come through to you, for whatever reason. It’s mostly used in print magazine and news. Style of writing has changed, you’ll get used to it. 😉

  • Grace (@136), you have no idea what you’re talking about, and you don’t even appear to know it.

    “Single quotes” ? tODD, many writers, use the very same style. It just might not have come through to you, for whatever reason.

    You know, I was mildly impressed that you actually went to a DOE document for data. That was impressive. But your attempt to bluff me on this one — even as you commit various other style and grammar errors — is going nowhere. I have the Chicago Manual of Style at my desk, and I know how to use it.

    Not that my point depends on any particular style manual. Yes, single quotes are used by the British much as those of us in North America use double quotes. But here’s where you’ve completely missed the point: not a single group, not a single writer, legitimately scatters opening single quotes throughout their writing like you do. Please, go ahead, name just a few of the “many writers” you cite in your defense. Go ahead. I’ll wait. I again refer you to your own comment (@106):

    If anyone is exhibing [sic] witless remarks, it’s you – the crude comments are not only false, but girlie girl – the kind of ‘snark [sic] speak, often screeched by young girls in high school locker rooms.

    I have no idea what you think that punctuation mark is doing before the word “snark” there — I suspect you’re using it in a manner akin to scare quotes — but it looks like you’re just a sloppy typist. Except you do it all the time.

    It’s just one of several sloppy tics of yours — less annoying than your much sloppier logic, on any given day — but I think it’s telling that you attempt to bluff even at the level of poor punctuation, pathetically trying to pass your errors off as some kind of new style that other people just don’t get.

    People who know, Grace, know what you don’t know. That goes for your self-aggrandizement in other areas, as well — you know, your self-proclaimed expertise in the areas of Lutheranism, Mormonism, etc.

    You’re capable of contributing unique insights and knowledge to our conversations, Grace. But so often, you try to BS your way through a topic you know less about than you want us to believe. But the only one fooled by the BS is you, it would seem. I don’t know why you think that’s worth your or our time.

  • Grace (@136), you have no idea what you’re talking about, and you don’t even appear to know it.

    “Single quotes” ? tODD, many writers, use the very same style. It just might not have come through to you, for whatever reason.

    You know, I was mildly impressed that you actually went to a DOE document for data. That was impressive. But your attempt to bluff me on this one — even as you commit various other style and grammar errors — is going nowhere. I have the Chicago Manual of Style at my desk, and I know how to use it.

    Not that my point depends on any particular style manual. Yes, single quotes are used by the British much as those of us in North America use double quotes. But here’s where you’ve completely missed the point: not a single group, not a single writer, legitimately scatters opening single quotes throughout their writing like you do. Please, go ahead, name just a few of the “many writers” you cite in your defense. Go ahead. I’ll wait. I again refer you to your own comment (@106):

    If anyone is exhibing [sic] witless remarks, it’s you – the crude comments are not only false, but girlie girl – the kind of ‘snark [sic] speak, often screeched by young girls in high school locker rooms.

    I have no idea what you think that punctuation mark is doing before the word “snark” there — I suspect you’re using it in a manner akin to scare quotes — but it looks like you’re just a sloppy typist. Except you do it all the time.

    It’s just one of several sloppy tics of yours — less annoying than your much sloppier logic, on any given day — but I think it’s telling that you attempt to bluff even at the level of poor punctuation, pathetically trying to pass your errors off as some kind of new style that other people just don’t get.

    People who know, Grace, know what you don’t know. That goes for your self-aggrandizement in other areas, as well — you know, your self-proclaimed expertise in the areas of Lutheranism, Mormonism, etc.

    You’re capable of contributing unique insights and knowledge to our conversations, Grace. But so often, you try to BS your way through a topic you know less about than you want us to believe. But the only one fooled by the BS is you, it would seem. I don’t know why you think that’s worth your or our time.

  • Grace

    tODD

    “You’re capable of contributing unique insights and knowledge to our conversations, Grace. But so often, you try to BS your way through a topic you know less about than you want us to believe. But the only one fooled by the BS is you, it would seem. I don’t know why you think that’s worth your or our time.”

    “BS” that’s what you resort to when you cannot use genteel language to a woman? Forget quote marks, you’re not on the same page when you find the need to use such vernacular as “BS”

    “I have no idea what you think that punctuation mark is doing before the word “snark” there — I suspect you’re using it in a manner akin to scare quotes — but it looks like you’re just a sloppy typist. Except you do it all the time.”

    I will continue to do it, when I please.

    I come from a British background, and YES, we use words differently, and there are often times spellings and punctuation that are not used or widely known or understood in the U.S. – that however does not preclude using them.

    Your very provincial and narrow attitudes when choosing to ‘correct my grammar and punctuation are telling, … and not in a favorable light. One only needs look at your use of “BS”, and it all falls apart on the grammar school play yard!

  • Grace

    tODD

    “You’re capable of contributing unique insights and knowledge to our conversations, Grace. But so often, you try to BS your way through a topic you know less about than you want us to believe. But the only one fooled by the BS is you, it would seem. I don’t know why you think that’s worth your or our time.”

    “BS” that’s what you resort to when you cannot use genteel language to a woman? Forget quote marks, you’re not on the same page when you find the need to use such vernacular as “BS”

    “I have no idea what you think that punctuation mark is doing before the word “snark” there — I suspect you’re using it in a manner akin to scare quotes — but it looks like you’re just a sloppy typist. Except you do it all the time.”

    I will continue to do it, when I please.

    I come from a British background, and YES, we use words differently, and there are often times spellings and punctuation that are not used or widely known or understood in the U.S. – that however does not preclude using them.

    Your very provincial and narrow attitudes when choosing to ‘correct my grammar and punctuation are telling, … and not in a favorable light. One only needs look at your use of “BS”, and it all falls apart on the grammar school play yard!

  • Grace (@138):

    “BS” that’s what you resort to when you cannot use genteel language to a woman?

    Please. Don’t even dare to hide behind the notion of gentility when you’re the one tossing out grade-school epithets like “girlie girl” (@106) at male commenters here. If you want to be treated like a lady, act like one. But don’t complain about mud-slinging as long as you enjoy wallowing in the stuff.

    I will continue to do it, when I please.

    Well ‘obviously. No one could ‘possibly ‘stop you. I just thought you might like to ‘know that it makes your writing look that much more ‘ridiculous.

    I come from a British background, and YES, we use words differently, and there are often times spellings and punctuation that are not used or widely known or understood in the U.S. – that however does not preclude using them.

    You just don’t know when to quit, do you? I know British people. I work with British people — our company has a London office! Your errors cannot be blamed on whatever you think “a British background” means. ‘Bluff, ‘bluff, ‘bluff!

    Tell us more about how much you studied something, ‘Grace. Tell us about all the other ‘writers who “use the very same style” (@136). Please. Cite them all.

  • Grace (@138):

    “BS” that’s what you resort to when you cannot use genteel language to a woman?

    Please. Don’t even dare to hide behind the notion of gentility when you’re the one tossing out grade-school epithets like “girlie girl” (@106) at male commenters here. If you want to be treated like a lady, act like one. But don’t complain about mud-slinging as long as you enjoy wallowing in the stuff.

    I will continue to do it, when I please.

    Well ‘obviously. No one could ‘possibly ‘stop you. I just thought you might like to ‘know that it makes your writing look that much more ‘ridiculous.

    I come from a British background, and YES, we use words differently, and there are often times spellings and punctuation that are not used or widely known or understood in the U.S. – that however does not preclude using them.

    You just don’t know when to quit, do you? I know British people. I work with British people — our company has a London office! Your errors cannot be blamed on whatever you think “a British background” means. ‘Bluff, ‘bluff, ‘bluff!

    Tell us more about how much you studied something, ‘Grace. Tell us about all the other ‘writers who “use the very same style” (@136). Please. Cite them all.

  • SAL

    SAL’s Law-
    “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a dispute involving writing style, grammar or punctuation approaches 1.”

    Much like Godwin’s Law it may indicates the point at which worthwhile discussion has begun an irretrievable decline.

  • SAL

    SAL’s Law-
    “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a dispute involving writing style, grammar or punctuation approaches 1.”

    Much like Godwin’s Law it may indicates the point at which worthwhile discussion has begun an irretrievable decline.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – Grace was just being Grace, with all which that implies, I know. Not much bothered. Now I did lose my cool at Dust, but that’s all settled. Thanks anyway.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – Grace was just being Grace, with all which that implies, I know. Not much bothered. Now I did lose my cool at Dust, but that’s all settled. Thanks anyway.

  • trotk

    In all this, I can’t believe no one corrected Dust. The windmills weren’t thought to be dragons – they were thought to be giants. It is like no one reads Don Quixote anymore.

  • trotk

    In all this, I can’t believe no one corrected Dust. The windmills weren’t thought to be dragons – they were thought to be giants. It is like no one reads Don Quixote anymore.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd @ 127 – good catch. Again, though it supports my broader point that oil is a fungible commodity and that oil flows globally. In any given month, we may import more oil for Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or UAE, but over time, the bulk of our imports year-in and year-out have come from Canada and Mexico. Even Venezuela has often been a larger and/or more consistent supplier than the Middle East. One thing that we also don’t see in these “concerns” about foreign oil are the companies who are drilling, extracting, refining and transporting petroleum and its derivatives. Most of them are American firms – the ExxonMobil’s, Texaco’s, Sunoco’s, or ConocoPhilips’ of the world. Aided and abetted by the British – BPAmoco or the Dutch – Shell (which I think has Texaco, now). CITGO (which you find at 7-Eleven’s all over the country) is our primary distribution system for Venezuelan/South American oil. We’re talking about an extremely globalized, multi-trillion dollar industry and all of this talk about freeing ourselves from dependency on foreign sources of production is either foolish or in support of ulterior motives like increased subsidies for biofuels, windmills or solar panel production like this (subscription required: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178872638705902.html?KEYWORDS=clean+energy).

  • SKPeterson

    Todd @ 127 – good catch. Again, though it supports my broader point that oil is a fungible commodity and that oil flows globally. In any given month, we may import more oil for Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or UAE, but over time, the bulk of our imports year-in and year-out have come from Canada and Mexico. Even Venezuela has often been a larger and/or more consistent supplier than the Middle East. One thing that we also don’t see in these “concerns” about foreign oil are the companies who are drilling, extracting, refining and transporting petroleum and its derivatives. Most of them are American firms – the ExxonMobil’s, Texaco’s, Sunoco’s, or ConocoPhilips’ of the world. Aided and abetted by the British – BPAmoco or the Dutch – Shell (which I think has Texaco, now). CITGO (which you find at 7-Eleven’s all over the country) is our primary distribution system for Venezuelan/South American oil. We’re talking about an extremely globalized, multi-trillion dollar industry and all of this talk about freeing ourselves from dependency on foreign sources of production is either foolish or in support of ulterior motives like increased subsidies for biofuels, windmills or solar panel production like this (subscription required: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178872638705902.html?KEYWORDS=clean+energy).

  • kerner

    @143:

    Which is why I have such misgivings about the policies our president is pursuing re energy and development of the American economy. Maybe I don’t understand all the macro-economics of this, but it seems to me that a major undertaking like building the Keystone pipeline would create a lot of jobs that private enterprize (not the government) would control, and this particular undertaking, by creating a cheaper and easier for the US to obtain and use energy, would decrease the cost of that energy locally at the pump.

    As for a partial answer to Klasie’s question about why I harbor such misgivings, it is that I seem to recall Obama repeatedly engaging in rhetoric about the US generally that is similar to the “economic fairness” rhetoric that he is using now about individuals, i.e. that it is unfair and intrinsically wrong for one nation/person to have and consume so much more than most of the others. Also, this administration does not seem to be concerned that other nations (eg. Brazil, Canada) are developing their oil reserves, or increasing their consumption (eg. India, China), thus in both cases building up the economies of these nations. But in our own case, we are expected to not develop our own resources,, or even develop easier and cheaper access to Canada’s, eventhough our economy suffers by not doing so.

    Now, someone motivated by a true devotion to environmentalism would want these less developed countries to leave their mineral resources in the ground and suffer along with us. But the Obama policy seems to favor development abroad, but restraint in the US. Perhaps I am guilty of connecting dots that should not be connected, but the result (narrowing of the gap between US economic strength and energy consumption and that of other nations) matches the rhetoric (It is wrong for any one nation, even our own, to be so much richer and to consume so much more energy than the rest). When results match rhetoric, it seems to me valid to conclude that the results are intentional.

  • kerner

    @143:

    Which is why I have such misgivings about the policies our president is pursuing re energy and development of the American economy. Maybe I don’t understand all the macro-economics of this, but it seems to me that a major undertaking like building the Keystone pipeline would create a lot of jobs that private enterprize (not the government) would control, and this particular undertaking, by creating a cheaper and easier for the US to obtain and use energy, would decrease the cost of that energy locally at the pump.

    As for a partial answer to Klasie’s question about why I harbor such misgivings, it is that I seem to recall Obama repeatedly engaging in rhetoric about the US generally that is similar to the “economic fairness” rhetoric that he is using now about individuals, i.e. that it is unfair and intrinsically wrong for one nation/person to have and consume so much more than most of the others. Also, this administration does not seem to be concerned that other nations (eg. Brazil, Canada) are developing their oil reserves, or increasing their consumption (eg. India, China), thus in both cases building up the economies of these nations. But in our own case, we are expected to not develop our own resources,, or even develop easier and cheaper access to Canada’s, eventhough our economy suffers by not doing so.

    Now, someone motivated by a true devotion to environmentalism would want these less developed countries to leave their mineral resources in the ground and suffer along with us. But the Obama policy seems to favor development abroad, but restraint in the US. Perhaps I am guilty of connecting dots that should not be connected, but the result (narrowing of the gap between US economic strength and energy consumption and that of other nations) matches the rhetoric (It is wrong for any one nation, even our own, to be so much richer and to consume so much more energy than the rest). When results match rhetoric, it seems to me valid to conclude that the results are intentional.

  • Tom Hering

    kerner, the landowners whose properties would have been impacted by the pipeline see the Obama decision as a victory. Isn’t it a conservative truism that locals can better decide what’s good for them? Why does the national interest (national security) trump locals in this case? Never mind environmental concerns (though there will be a major spill, sooner or later). Why is it suddenly okay, in the conservative view, for big government to use eminent domain for a private, big business project?

  • Tom Hering

    kerner, the landowners whose properties would have been impacted by the pipeline see the Obama decision as a victory. Isn’t it a conservative truism that locals can better decide what’s good for them? Why does the national interest (national security) trump locals in this case? Never mind environmental concerns (though there will be a major spill, sooner or later). Why is it suddenly okay, in the conservative view, for big government to use eminent domain for a private, big business project?

  • kerner

    Tom @145:

    I confess that I haven’t researched the attitudes of the people who own land where the pipeline would be built, but how do you know how they feel? Maybe that land was formerly undeveloped, and is now worth more for being near an ecomnomic asset. I doubt if the pipeline was going to go through anyone’s front yard, but if it was, maybe the homeowners would get more for his home from the eminent domain compensation than they would have by selling it in this depressed economy. Money that could be used to get a better place.

  • kerner

    Tom @145:

    I confess that I haven’t researched the attitudes of the people who own land where the pipeline would be built, but how do you know how they feel? Maybe that land was formerly undeveloped, and is now worth more for being near an ecomnomic asset. I doubt if the pipeline was going to go through anyone’s front yard, but if it was, maybe the homeowners would get more for his home from the eminent domain compensation than they would have by selling it in this depressed economy. Money that could be used to get a better place.

  • Tom Hering
  • Tom Hering
  • SKPeterson

    Tom – I’m not sure those are all the landowners, and I’m not sure that their needs could easily be met by working with them at the local level as you suggest. Instead we have a peremptory decision by the federal government. Many of these same landowners are all for having the federal government give them agricultural subsidies and also oppose expansion of railroads across their lands (for example, look up the controversies associated with the expansion of the CP/DME west into the coal fields of Wyoming) and many of these same landowners demand that the government regulate the rates they pay to the railroads to haul their products to market. Plenty of hypocrisy in this by the “poor, little guys” on the prairie standing up to Furrin Big Oil.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – I’m not sure those are all the landowners, and I’m not sure that their needs could easily be met by working with them at the local level as you suggest. Instead we have a peremptory decision by the federal government. Many of these same landowners are all for having the federal government give them agricultural subsidies and also oppose expansion of railroads across their lands (for example, look up the controversies associated with the expansion of the CP/DME west into the coal fields of Wyoming) and many of these same landowners demand that the government regulate the rates they pay to the railroads to haul their products to market. Plenty of hypocrisy in this by the “poor, little guys” on the prairie standing up to Furrin Big Oil.

  • SKPeterson

    I should say “could NOT easily be met” in line two.

  • SKPeterson

    I should say “could NOT easily be met” in line two.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 145:

    Why is it suddenly okay, in the conservative view, for big government to use eminent domain for a private, big business project?

    Where did you get the idea that the State Department’s involvement with the Keystone pipeline includes the government taking property by eminent domain? I didn’t watch that whole 9 minute video you posted, but I looked at your other link, and I’ve read a bunch of other opposition material on that pipeline, and it’s always a more general environmental concern about the aquifer, not an eminent domain thing. I think you’re running way ahead of yourself there. The State Department approval doesn’t preempt the need for local and state approvals, negotiations with the individual landowners, and all of that other stuff. It’s just an extra layer of approval that’s required because the pipeline originates in another country — the international aspect is why the State Department is in it at all.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 145:

    Why is it suddenly okay, in the conservative view, for big government to use eminent domain for a private, big business project?

    Where did you get the idea that the State Department’s involvement with the Keystone pipeline includes the government taking property by eminent domain? I didn’t watch that whole 9 minute video you posted, but I looked at your other link, and I’ve read a bunch of other opposition material on that pipeline, and it’s always a more general environmental concern about the aquifer, not an eminent domain thing. I think you’re running way ahead of yourself there. The State Department approval doesn’t preempt the need for local and state approvals, negotiations with the individual landowners, and all of that other stuff. It’s just an extra layer of approval that’s required because the pipeline originates in another country — the international aspect is why the State Department is in it at all.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP @ 148 – we are all hypocrates, aren’t we, just about different things. That is why I refuse to demonise just one side, as some here are wont to do….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP @ 148 – we are all hypocrates, aren’t we, just about different things. That is why I refuse to demonise just one side, as some here are wont to do….

  • kerner

    This is a way more balanced video showing both sides taking their positions. The objections I hear aren’t eminent domain type objections. Rather, they are environmentalist objections: one of Obama’s greater voting blocs. But there seem to be a lot of ordinary people on both sides.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGFjIhl50SA&feature=related

  • kerner

    This is a way more balanced video showing both sides taking their positions. The objections I hear aren’t eminent domain type objections. Rather, they are environmentalist objections: one of Obama’s greater voting blocs. But there seem to be a lot of ordinary people on both sides.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGFjIhl50SA&feature=related

  • Grace

    toDD 139

    “You just don’t know when to quit, do you? I know British people. I work with British people — our company has a London office! Your errors cannot be blamed on whatever you think “a British background” means. ‘Bluff, ‘bluff, ‘bluff!”

    Your company? (whoever they are) having a London office, has nothing to do with my background, it’s meaningless. Your hobby is nitpicking anything you don’t like, .. it isn’t always directed to me, you’ve done this to others as well.

    How I choose to write, doesn’t impact your life, nor does it diminish what I write. Nitpicking is nothing short of unjustified criticism. It’s boring tODD, and serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to garner negative attention for yourself.

  • Grace

    toDD 139

    “You just don’t know when to quit, do you? I know British people. I work with British people — our company has a London office! Your errors cannot be blamed on whatever you think “a British background” means. ‘Bluff, ‘bluff, ‘bluff!”

    Your company? (whoever they are) having a London office, has nothing to do with my background, it’s meaningless. Your hobby is nitpicking anything you don’t like, .. it isn’t always directed to me, you’ve done this to others as well.

    How I choose to write, doesn’t impact your life, nor does it diminish what I write. Nitpicking is nothing short of unjustified criticism. It’s boring tODD, and serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to garner negative attention for yourself.

  • Cincinnatus

    Sorry, Grace, but no standard English grammatical/syntactical system allows for random apostrophes, double periods, and serial commas in correct writing. We can tolerate (sometimes) the fact that you’re a bad typist. Heck, I make typographical errors in my blog comments all the time. But don’t pretend you have secret knowledge of an alternate system of typing conventions renowned in Britain but unknown in America. Were you also raised in Leeds?

    (obscure reference?)

  • Cincinnatus

    Sorry, Grace, but no standard English grammatical/syntactical system allows for random apostrophes, double periods, and serial commas in correct writing. We can tolerate (sometimes) the fact that you’re a bad typist. Heck, I make typographical errors in my blog comments all the time. But don’t pretend you have secret knowledge of an alternate system of typing conventions renowned in Britain but unknown in America. Were you also raised in Leeds?

    (obscure reference?)

  • SKPeterson

    Klasie – I have more of a problem with the federal government stepping in and stopping the pipeline than with the local landowners being opposed; I would support the landowners if the pipeline owners wanted to have the feds or states invoke imminent domain and seize their property. Let the pipeline proceed and let the pipeline owners negotiate directly with the actual owners of the land that the pipeline would traverse.

  • SKPeterson

    Klasie – I have more of a problem with the federal government stepping in and stopping the pipeline than with the local landowners being opposed; I would support the landowners if the pipeline owners wanted to have the feds or states invoke imminent domain and seize their property. Let the pipeline proceed and let the pipeline owners negotiate directly with the actual owners of the land that the pipeline would traverse.

  • SKPeterson

    I write in a dialect of ‘English known as Swedlish; This allows me to randomly Capitalize words Without regard to silly Standard English rules and; conventions, of Punctuation Also, if I misspell a Word, it,Is precisely because I have the Freedom in Swedlish to DO so. AnyOne who Objects is obviously A hater~

  • SKPeterson

    I write in a dialect of ‘English known as Swedlish; This allows me to randomly Capitalize words Without regard to silly Standard English rules and; conventions, of Punctuation Also, if I misspell a Word, it,Is precisely because I have the Freedom in Swedlish to DO so. AnyOne who Objects is obviously A hater~

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 154

    “Sorry, Grace, but no standard English grammatical/syntactical system allows for random apostrophes, double periods, and serial commas in correct writing.”

    “Standard English” – things have changed. Just as people have invented new words to define a situation, etc., so have they chosen to use apostrophes, double periods etc. You won’t find this usage in old texts, but it does exist within papers and newer material.

    “We can tolerate (sometimes) the fact that you’re a bad typist. Heck, I make typographical errors in my blog comments all the time. But don’t pretend you have secret knowledge of an alternate system of typing conventions renowned in Britain but unknown in America. Were you also raised in Leeds?”

    I’m a very good typist. I don’t have, as you state “secret knowledge” it just happens as I stated earlier, things have changed. People use …. when they write. The old form of the written word is not carved in stone. There are many creative ways in which to write and express oneself. I read hours upon hours a day, not just technical material, but news, etc. The changes are, is some instances very dramatic from 15, 20, 50 years ago. Change is not always a bad thing. The new forms of writing have given many, the opportunity to express themselves more openly, with a fresh new flair.

    I was born and raised in the United States.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 154

    “Sorry, Grace, but no standard English grammatical/syntactical system allows for random apostrophes, double periods, and serial commas in correct writing.”

    “Standard English” – things have changed. Just as people have invented new words to define a situation, etc., so have they chosen to use apostrophes, double periods etc. You won’t find this usage in old texts, but it does exist within papers and newer material.

    “We can tolerate (sometimes) the fact that you’re a bad typist. Heck, I make typographical errors in my blog comments all the time. But don’t pretend you have secret knowledge of an alternate system of typing conventions renowned in Britain but unknown in America. Were you also raised in Leeds?”

    I’m a very good typist. I don’t have, as you state “secret knowledge” it just happens as I stated earlier, things have changed. People use …. when they write. The old form of the written word is not carved in stone. There are many creative ways in which to write and express oneself. I read hours upon hours a day, not just technical material, but news, etc. The changes are, is some instances very dramatic from 15, 20, 50 years ago. Change is not always a bad thing. The new forms of writing have given many, the opportunity to express themselves more openly, with a fresh new flair.

    I was born and raised in the United States.

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace,

    I realize that language is fluid and dynamic. But that doesn’t mean you, as an isolated individual, get to invent your own rules and expect everyone else to understand you, much less conform. Indeed, the possibility of comprehension by your readers is premised upon standards.

    But I’m dying to know, Grace: what legitimate, respectable “papers and newer writings” contain the novel punctuation mistakes I see in your typing? Middle-schooler blog posts don’t count as sources for acceptable syntax.

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace,

    I realize that language is fluid and dynamic. But that doesn’t mean you, as an isolated individual, get to invent your own rules and expect everyone else to understand you, much less conform. Indeed, the possibility of comprehension by your readers is premised upon standards.

    But I’m dying to know, Grace: what legitimate, respectable “papers and newer writings” contain the novel punctuation mistakes I see in your typing? Middle-schooler blog posts don’t count as sources for acceptable syntax.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 158

    ” But I’m dying to know, Grace: what legitimate, respectable “papers and newer writings” contain the novel punctuation mistakes I see in your typing? Middle-schooler blog posts don’t count as sources for acceptable syntax.

    Regarding that which is bolded – Flaming bait, – sarcastic or disrespectful questions I have no time for.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 158

    ” But I’m dying to know, Grace: what legitimate, respectable “papers and newer writings” contain the novel punctuation mistakes I see in your typing? Middle-schooler blog posts don’t count as sources for acceptable syntax.

    Regarding that which is bolded – Flaming bait, – sarcastic or disrespectful questions I have no time for.

  • Grace, it’s true that a discussion of nothing more than a person’s typographical errors would, of itself, be quite “boring” (@153).

    A number of commenters on this blog routinely make typos, including Bror and Klasie. The thing is, they’ll both admit to their flaws, and even have good reasons for them (typing on a Blackberry or having English as a second language, I believe). So any criticism of them for such flaws would, indeed, be dull. It’s a known problem, and as long as comprehension isn’t hindered, it’s not worth mentioning.

    But what makes it so interesting in your case is that it provides such a clear window into your modus operandi in all things, not merely spelling and punctuation!

    Because rather than admit to the errors that are obvious and there for everyone to see, you double down. Beyond all reason, you attempt to convince us that you, somehow, possess superior knowledge to all of us — even though your errors make it quite clear that the opposite is true. And this would-be superior knowledge came to you, as you so often boast, through your intensive study habits (cf. “I read hours upon hours a day, not just technical material, but news, etc.” @157), as well as a unique background that no one else possesses (“I come from a British background, and YES, we use words differently” @138).

    It’s utter nonsense, of course, but you’ve tried this on several other occasions in a similar fashion. You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you wrongly assume that we know even less — which only serves to suggest further that your claims of vast amounts of experience are hooey. I mean, I don’t claim to be the Grammar King — I go to our editors for really tricky questions — but I’m 100% certain that I know more about the topic than you do.
    I know what I don’t know. You? You don’t know, and you apparently don’t know that you don’t know.

    Just as people have invented new words to define a situation, etc., so have they chosen to use apostrophes, double periods etc. You won’t find this usage in old texts, but it does exist within papers and newer material.

    Once again, I’ll call your bluff, but I know that you won’t respond. You’ve got nothing to back up that claim of some farcical new usage pattern “within papers and newer material”, so you’re going to feign offense (cf. your previous response in this thread) or just ignore me. You do it, every time.

    People use …. when they write.

    Indeed they do use ellipses. Which is why no one is calling you on that. What I specifically did call out is your ‘propensity to ‘prepend lone ‘apostrophes or ‘single quotes in your ‘comments. As well as your tendency to mash together random combinations of periods, commas, and dashes:

    Your hobby is nitpicking anything you don’t like, .. [sic] it isn’t always directed to me, you’ve done this to others as well. (@153)

    Regarding that which is bolded – Flaming bait, – [sic] sarcastic or disrespectful questions I have no time for. (@159)

    As to this latter comment, by the way, please. I know you’re just feigning offense so as to avoid actually answering a question. You’ve used the “I have no time” excuse countless times on this blog, even though your twenty one comments on this thread alone obviously speak to a different truth. You’ve got all the time in the world to waste here, and you even have time to toss out your own puerile epithets (remember? “girlie girl” @106?) But oh! How sensitive your precious, precious eyes are when the tables are turned!

    Bilge.

  • Grace, it’s true that a discussion of nothing more than a person’s typographical errors would, of itself, be quite “boring” (@153).

    A number of commenters on this blog routinely make typos, including Bror and Klasie. The thing is, they’ll both admit to their flaws, and even have good reasons for them (typing on a Blackberry or having English as a second language, I believe). So any criticism of them for such flaws would, indeed, be dull. It’s a known problem, and as long as comprehension isn’t hindered, it’s not worth mentioning.

    But what makes it so interesting in your case is that it provides such a clear window into your modus operandi in all things, not merely spelling and punctuation!

    Because rather than admit to the errors that are obvious and there for everyone to see, you double down. Beyond all reason, you attempt to convince us that you, somehow, possess superior knowledge to all of us — even though your errors make it quite clear that the opposite is true. And this would-be superior knowledge came to you, as you so often boast, through your intensive study habits (cf. “I read hours upon hours a day, not just technical material, but news, etc.” @157), as well as a unique background that no one else possesses (“I come from a British background, and YES, we use words differently” @138).

    It’s utter nonsense, of course, but you’ve tried this on several other occasions in a similar fashion. You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you wrongly assume that we know even less — which only serves to suggest further that your claims of vast amounts of experience are hooey. I mean, I don’t claim to be the Grammar King — I go to our editors for really tricky questions — but I’m 100% certain that I know more about the topic than you do.
    I know what I don’t know. You? You don’t know, and you apparently don’t know that you don’t know.

    Just as people have invented new words to define a situation, etc., so have they chosen to use apostrophes, double periods etc. You won’t find this usage in old texts, but it does exist within papers and newer material.

    Once again, I’ll call your bluff, but I know that you won’t respond. You’ve got nothing to back up that claim of some farcical new usage pattern “within papers and newer material”, so you’re going to feign offense (cf. your previous response in this thread) or just ignore me. You do it, every time.

    People use …. when they write.

    Indeed they do use ellipses. Which is why no one is calling you on that. What I specifically did call out is your ‘propensity to ‘prepend lone ‘apostrophes or ‘single quotes in your ‘comments. As well as your tendency to mash together random combinations of periods, commas, and dashes:

    Your hobby is nitpicking anything you don’t like, .. [sic] it isn’t always directed to me, you’ve done this to others as well. (@153)

    Regarding that which is bolded – Flaming bait, – [sic] sarcastic or disrespectful questions I have no time for. (@159)

    As to this latter comment, by the way, please. I know you’re just feigning offense so as to avoid actually answering a question. You’ve used the “I have no time” excuse countless times on this blog, even though your twenty one comments on this thread alone obviously speak to a different truth. You’ve got all the time in the world to waste here, and you even have time to toss out your own puerile epithets (remember? “girlie girl” @106?) But oh! How sensitive your precious, precious eyes are when the tables are turned!

    Bilge.

  • trotk

    Grace –

    I oftentimes wonder what is going on in your head. Your posts are littered with misplaced commas, random apostrophes, and other interesting mistakes. There is no disputing this.

    And yet, when challenged, rather than say, “Whoops, my fingers must have slipped,” you act as if there is an alternate set of grammatical rules that justifies your mistakes. Your evidence for this is that you have seen these particular grammatical symbols used in similar ways in legitimate writing.

    All you have to do is acknowledge you made a mistake or produce a decent example of an established writer whom you are copying and everyone will back down. But you refuse to do either of those things. You are incapable of admitting a mistake, and you cannot produce an example to justify yourself, because it doesn’t exist.

    Why won’t you just say you messed up?

  • trotk

    Grace –

    I oftentimes wonder what is going on in your head. Your posts are littered with misplaced commas, random apostrophes, and other interesting mistakes. There is no disputing this.

    And yet, when challenged, rather than say, “Whoops, my fingers must have slipped,” you act as if there is an alternate set of grammatical rules that justifies your mistakes. Your evidence for this is that you have seen these particular grammatical symbols used in similar ways in legitimate writing.

    All you have to do is acknowledge you made a mistake or produce a decent example of an established writer whom you are copying and everyone will back down. But you refuse to do either of those things. You are incapable of admitting a mistake, and you cannot produce an example to justify yourself, because it doesn’t exist.

    Why won’t you just say you messed up?

  • trotk

    Whoops, tODD got to the heart issue first. An inability to admit when one is wrong plagues ‘Grace, although her name reveals what she would receive if she did.

  • trotk

    Whoops, tODD got to the heart issue first. An inability to admit when one is wrong plagues ‘Grace, although her name reveals what she would receive if she did.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd – You used the phrase “doubled down,” and you know where that leads.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd – You used the phrase “doubled down,” and you know where that leads.

  • SK (@163), my bad. I’d forgotten that “double down” is a gambling term. And gambling reminds me of Vegas, which reminds me of prostitution, which reminds me about how Ron Paul wants to force our children (the ones who survived due to the Amber Alert) to get addicted to marijuana and then work in brothels on the Nevada-Utah border, on one side of which are people in the same church as Mitt Romney, which church Grace happens to be an expert in, able to cite not one but two, or possibly three quotes on it. I have studied all of these topics for well over a century, so I know what I’m talking about.

  • SK (@163), my bad. I’d forgotten that “double down” is a gambling term. And gambling reminds me of Vegas, which reminds me of prostitution, which reminds me about how Ron Paul wants to force our children (the ones who survived due to the Amber Alert) to get addicted to marijuana and then work in brothels on the Nevada-Utah border, on one side of which are people in the same church as Mitt Romney, which church Grace happens to be an expert in, able to cite not one but two, or possibly three quotes on it. I have studied all of these topics for well over a century, so I know what I’m talking about.

  • Dust

    Grace…..just. put. a. period. after. each. word. and. everyone. will. respect. you 🙂

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Grace…..just. put. a. period. after. each. word. and. everyone. will. respect. you 🙂

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – blackberry and hasty typing, more than the second language thing, although it might play a role.

    Hello, my name is Klasie, and I am a typoist? Typologist? Frequent typo-offender? Committer of typos?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – blackberry and hasty typing, more than the second language thing, although it might play a role.

    Hello, my name is Klasie, and I am a typoist? Typologist? Frequent typo-offender? Committer of typos?

  • Klasie (@166), you’re on a Blackberry, too? Man, you guys are like advertisements for non-Blackberry phones … I mean, purely from a typographical stance. 😉

  • Klasie (@166), you’re on a Blackberry, too? Man, you guys are like advertisements for non-Blackberry phones … I mean, purely from a typographical stance. 😉

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Note – bb + haste. I would wager that any other smartphone would yield the same result – because when I type on a normal keyboard, my typo frequency is only about 33% better…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Note – bb + haste. I would wager that any other smartphone would yield the same result – because when I type on a normal keyboard, my typo frequency is only about 33% better…

  • Grace

    Dust @ 165

    “Grace…..just. put. a. period. after. each. word. and. everyone. will. respect. you”

    Hi Dust – whether I receive “respect” or not (from a handful of flame baiters) makes no difference. That sort of respect is no prize.

    The blogosphere has many different types of people, on every blog, one will likely find a few who wile away their time, flaming and baiting. However, it’s not as prevalent as it once was.

    Those who make personal attacks on others, have an agenda. When one is making a personal attack, they are almost always doing so, in an attempt to discredit those to whom they disagree. Their nitpicks are a source of derailing a discussion that would otherwise be beneficial, but instead they pursue a pet peeve that amounts to a personal attack.

    This blog has more than most, perhaps some are sock puppets, that’s a fairly common combination with Flamers -&- Baiters all done in an attempt to SILENCE those to whom they disagree…. but of course their rebuttal is “NAY, NAY” it never changes.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 165

    “Grace…..just. put. a. period. after. each. word. and. everyone. will. respect. you”

    Hi Dust – whether I receive “respect” or not (from a handful of flame baiters) makes no difference. That sort of respect is no prize.

    The blogosphere has many different types of people, on every blog, one will likely find a few who wile away their time, flaming and baiting. However, it’s not as prevalent as it once was.

    Those who make personal attacks on others, have an agenda. When one is making a personal attack, they are almost always doing so, in an attempt to discredit those to whom they disagree. Their nitpicks are a source of derailing a discussion that would otherwise be beneficial, but instead they pursue a pet peeve that amounts to a personal attack.

    This blog has more than most, perhaps some are sock puppets, that’s a fairly common combination with Flamers -&- Baiters all done in an attempt to SILENCE those to whom they disagree…. but of course their rebuttal is “NAY, NAY” it never changes.

  • Grace

    The above post should be:

    Dust @ 165

    “Grace…..just. put. a. period. after. each. word. and. everyone. will. respect. you”

    Hi Dust – whether I receive “respect” or not, (from a handful of flame baiters) makes no difference. That sort of respect is no prize.

    The blogosphere has many different types of people, on every blog, one will likely find a few who wile away their time, flaming and baiting. However, it’s not as prevalent as it once was.

    Those who make personal attacks on others, have an agenda. When one is making a personal attack, they are almost always doing so, in an attempt to discredit those to whom they disagree. Their nitpicks are a source of derailing a discussion that would otherwise be beneficial, but instead they pursue a pet peeve that amounts to a personal attack.

    This blog has more than most, perhaps some are sock puppets, that’s a fairly common combination with Flamers -&- Baiters all done in an attempt to SILENCE those to whom they disagree…. but of course their rebuttal is “NAY, NAY” it never changes.

  • Grace

    The above post should be:

    Dust @ 165

    “Grace…..just. put. a. period. after. each. word. and. everyone. will. respect. you”

    Hi Dust – whether I receive “respect” or not, (from a handful of flame baiters) makes no difference. That sort of respect is no prize.

    The blogosphere has many different types of people, on every blog, one will likely find a few who wile away their time, flaming and baiting. However, it’s not as prevalent as it once was.

    Those who make personal attacks on others, have an agenda. When one is making a personal attack, they are almost always doing so, in an attempt to discredit those to whom they disagree. Their nitpicks are a source of derailing a discussion that would otherwise be beneficial, but instead they pursue a pet peeve that amounts to a personal attack.

    This blog has more than most, perhaps some are sock puppets, that’s a fairly common combination with Flamers -&- Baiters all done in an attempt to SILENCE those to whom they disagree…. but of course their rebuttal is “NAY, NAY” it never changes.

  • Well, Grace (@170), I suppose I should thank you for at least surprising me with a mildly different tactic.

    Not that you backed up any of your previous assertions that you spent several comments attempting to defend. Of course you didn’t, they were ridiculous. But you didn’t, as such, simply feign outrage or merely ignore the several people who asked you for evidence of your silly claims.

    No, you’re now trying the “I’m above it all” tactic:

    One will likely find a few who wile away their time, flaming and baiting.

    Oh, I see. I guess that was a completely different Grace, then, accusing (@106) Klasie of sounding like a “girlie girl”. Because it certainly would sound more than a little hypocritical for you to lament “flaming and baiting” if you were the same Grace who had engaged in that nonsense.

    Of course, it is more than a wee bit confusing why this other Grace does seem to resort to these grade-school attacks again and again, attempting to win arguments by insulting men’s masculinity:

    Bob? …. a girlie two liner?[1]

    “Tsk, tsk,” ? isn’t that just real girly?[2]

    But the important thing is that you and I can join together, Grace, in labeling this other commenter also named Grace as a real low-class sort, a pathetic lump who must resort to simplistic flaming and baiting rather than actually addressing the points being made. Take that, (other commenter also named) Grace! This Grace (@170) and I won’t stand for your grade-school personal attacks!

    Oh, and Grace, if you know that other Grace, you really should speak to her about her ridiculous pettiness. I mean, it’s one thing to criticize actual mistakes in people’s posts, but, as can be seen above, she even criticizes word choice according to some bizarre Mean Girl rubric. For instance, in response to my using the phrase “that’s rich”, Catty Flaming Grace said:

    I have to laugh,….. I haven’t heard or read anywhere, phrases such as … “that’s rich” or “too much” for years – they used to use those phrases ten years ago, but not today.[3]

    Obviously, that Grace has an agenda, like you said. Her comments are chock full of ad hominem attacks and digressions.

    [1]geneveith.com/2012/01/03/the-case-against-ron-paul/#comment-136675
    [2]geneveith.com/2011/12/06/anti-tebow-bigotry/#comment-134671
    [3]geneveith.com/2011/12/06/anti-tebow-bigotry/#comment-134914

  • Well, Grace (@170), I suppose I should thank you for at least surprising me with a mildly different tactic.

    Not that you backed up any of your previous assertions that you spent several comments attempting to defend. Of course you didn’t, they were ridiculous. But you didn’t, as such, simply feign outrage or merely ignore the several people who asked you for evidence of your silly claims.

    No, you’re now trying the “I’m above it all” tactic:

    One will likely find a few who wile away their time, flaming and baiting.

    Oh, I see. I guess that was a completely different Grace, then, accusing (@106) Klasie of sounding like a “girlie girl”. Because it certainly would sound more than a little hypocritical for you to lament “flaming and baiting” if you were the same Grace who had engaged in that nonsense.

    Of course, it is more than a wee bit confusing why this other Grace does seem to resort to these grade-school attacks again and again, attempting to win arguments by insulting men’s masculinity:

    Bob? …. a girlie two liner?[1]

    “Tsk, tsk,” ? isn’t that just real girly?[2]

    But the important thing is that you and I can join together, Grace, in labeling this other commenter also named Grace as a real low-class sort, a pathetic lump who must resort to simplistic flaming and baiting rather than actually addressing the points being made. Take that, (other commenter also named) Grace! This Grace (@170) and I won’t stand for your grade-school personal attacks!

    Oh, and Grace, if you know that other Grace, you really should speak to her about her ridiculous pettiness. I mean, it’s one thing to criticize actual mistakes in people’s posts, but, as can be seen above, she even criticizes word choice according to some bizarre Mean Girl rubric. For instance, in response to my using the phrase “that’s rich”, Catty Flaming Grace said:

    I have to laugh,….. I haven’t heard or read anywhere, phrases such as … “that’s rich” or “too much” for years – they used to use those phrases ten years ago, but not today.[3]

    Obviously, that Grace has an agenda, like you said. Her comments are chock full of ad hominem attacks and digressions.

    [1]geneveith.com/2012/01/03/the-case-against-ron-paul/#comment-136675
    [2]geneveith.com/2011/12/06/anti-tebow-bigotry/#comment-134671
    [3]geneveith.com/2011/12/06/anti-tebow-bigotry/#comment-134914

  • SKPeterson

    I didn’t know the phrase “that’s rich” was passe. What phrase has replaced it? “Doubled down” or variants thereof? Maybe “All in.”

  • SKPeterson

    I didn’t know the phrase “that’s rich” was passe. What phrase has replaced it? “Doubled down” or variants thereof? Maybe “All in.”