On 11/6/2011 12:23 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/5/2011 3:37 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

I'm just not deluded enough to think your "rest of us" was more than a
lunatic fringe.

You got it backwards. The lunatic fringe are the ones who think Palin is
something really special. Most people don't. That means for most of us
it is "we" that don't think Palin is anything to get excited about. The
majority is never the lunatic fringe. That's always the minority who
holds unusual views like the Palin brigade.

Again with your Palin fetish. Yawn.

I'm sure he was fine as a community organizer.

You mean like he's been fine as a student, a lawyer, a family man, a
senator, an author, and now the president? Meaning fine means he
excelled at it. Because that's what the facts show.

No, I mean he was fine as a community organizer.

So the rules change if you don't like the two term POTUS?

The rules are the same. It's just when everything screams out this guy
stunk at being president it doesn't matter that he got elected twice.

I think he was an adequate POTUS, not one of the greats, but not as bad
as Nixon or Clinton.

His horrible job while in office negates the fact he got elected twice.
That doesn't happen often, by the way.

Horrible = not acting like a Dem.


By successful that means he's gotten a large part of his agenda
passed and that he's moving the country in the direction he wanted
to.

That seems to be down, is that what he wants?

You don't understand that the country was down and out when he took over
and he's spent the better part of three years doing one thing, trying to
bring us back from the brink of disaster.

Gee, I see it as pushing us further toward the edge.

He never has had time to put
in an agenda of his own. He's still busy putting out the fires that were
left after the Bush administration did a number on the country. Or did
you think Bush left Obama a country in fine shape?

Nope, the last few administrations of Dems and Reps have left us in poor
shape.

Here's an example. Obama wanted to pass card check so it would be
easier for people to form unions. It didn't pass congress. But it's
being implemented anyway by the NLRB.

Yes, the workers wanted a secret ballot, the nerve of them!

Says who? It's the management that was using the secret ballot issue as
an excuse to deny card check. Besides what is so great about the secret
ballot? They don't use it in the Iowa caucuses and they don't use it in
Congress either. So obviously it's not necessary in all elections, is it?

Card check means the unions know who supported them and who didn't,
which is none of their business in a free society. I support a secret
ballot to avoid union intimidation of the workers.

The EPA is doing things Obama wanted done too that he couldn't get
passed by congress either. So just because these kinds of things get
by you doesn't mean they get by me or others who are more on the
ball than you are.

More willing to drink the KoolAid, in other words.

I mean more aware. Obama is moving his agenda ahead even as the
republicans put one road block after another in congress to stop him.
That's what I'm talking about. Did you forget? It was about Obama
accomplishing things you said he wasn't doing. But as I just pointed out
here's two examples where he is. There's plenty more too.

Those samples won't endear him to those of us who support civil rights.

Aware only as an irritant. Is that why you keep bringing her up?

I don't bring her up Fox News does. Then they quote her on other shows
and next thing you know I'm hearing from her again. I wish she would
shut up and go away. That woman's an idiot.

Agreed, but she has no place in this discussion, yet you can't stop
mentioning her.


Give Obama two years and let's see how bad he is at his job. He needs
two terms to get us out of the hole and back on our feet again. A
country doesn't come out of it's worst recession ever in just a couple
of years. Throw in a wrecked real estate market to boot and that takes
even longer to turn around. Give Obama two terms and my prediction is he
will do very well.

FDR couldn't do it in 8, WWII saved him.


I'd say he's a lot like Justin Timberlake, he's very successful but
not really very good at anything.

JT is low on the horizon for me, beyond exposing Janet's saggy tit and
showing up in "The Social Network." His acting wasn't too bad, but that
may be because the film set a low standard.

To me he's a good example of someone without much in the way of looks or
talent that is still extremely successful and very popular. He's okay
but is treated like he's great. There are a few people like that.

Good, we're off Palin and back to talking about Obama.


Lying to Congress is nothing? I'll remember that.

Yeah, remember when the Tobacco executives did it and said they
didn't believe tobacco was addictive, and remember when all the
baseball players on steroids said they never touched them? They all
lied to congress and it was nothing. Besides, I don't think Clinton
lied to congress, he lied in a deposition in a lawsuit.

This seems a bit vague, are you saying you also admire these others
because they lied to Congress?

No, not at all. Where do you get that? I didn't say anything about
admiring anyone. I said lying to congress isn't a big deal and gave you
examples of people doing it without any penalty.

That's somewhat clearer, so lying to Congress is OK if you get away with it.

So what does one unknown man's opinion count for?

Like yours?

Not like mine. Mine's an educated opinion. There's a difference.

You still haven't told where you bought your diploma from.

Thanks for reminding me, I wanted to ask which diploma mill you bought
your poli sci rag from? I want to know which I should avoid.

California State University, and I earned it. Since you're asking about
what school to avoid I take it that your degree is not from a diploma
mill either or from any accredited institution of higher education?
Maybe you're a Phoenix.

Is this "I've shown you mine, now let's see yours"?

Not a phoenix, the cinnamon singed my socks.

My credentials aren't the issue, I'm just curious about how you got a
poli sci degree when you know so little about it.

I don't have that perspective, I'm still on Earth.

I just look at the facts. I can't imagine where you get the idea Obama
is not a winner at everything he's tried. I don't see a failure
anywhere. So pray tell, what's he done badly at?

Getting a real health care act past Congress instead of that pathetic
stack of uselessness.


He's also won a lot politically. Just lately he orchestrated bin
Laden's death

Well, he watched it on TV.

Nice discounting the fact that not only did he watch it on TV but he's
the man who ordered bin Laden be killed. A light decision in your view
so it seems. But then everything Obama does seems like nothing to you
unless you can characterize it as a mistake like F & F, then it's really
huge. But hey, your fair in your assessments, aren't you?

From what I read at the time, he dithered about giving the order so
long that the military were concerned that they would lose the opportunity.


he got Khaddafy out of power in Libya and into a casket as well.
Those are not wins in your book?

Not his, though. NATO and the people of Libya had at least a small part.

Again not Obama who gets credit. Bet you would have blamed him if things
had not turned out well though, wouldn't you?

No, its a Libya/NATO issue.

Seeing a pattern here?

Not really.


Do you think Obama would have sold even 1% of his books if he HADN'T
been POTUS?

That's beside the point. He did sell the books. He did graduate cum
laude from Harvard. He did get elected to the senate and the presidency.
Only someone totally biased against him could underestimate those things
like you do. You cut him down at every opportunity whether it's fair or
not.

Not really, I think he's a nice enough, well meaning guy who's in over
his head. I'm sure he was a fine community organizer.


That's what republicans do. But you're not one of them, eh?

Nope. When I sometimes vote for a Rep as the lesser of two weasels, I
hold my nose and wish the Dems would select better candidates.

Have you REALLY studied political science? Do you have any awareness of
how campaigns and votes are bought and manipulated in the US?

Sure, and far better than you do. After all I studied all that kind of
thing in college. How do you think you would know more than I do without
doing the work I had to do?

But you repeatedly show that you learned so very little.

You think watching TV is as good as a college degree perhaps?

As good as your degree, probably, but I don't watch that much TV.

Yes, for POTUS, for instance you can choose either candidate they have
chosen for you. When they want a specific tool more than usual, we get
the election of '08, where the Reps were presented the ridiculous slate
of McCain/Plain.

I don't know what you're talking about. I can vote for anyone I want to
for president including myself. There are always more than two people on
the ballot running for president. You're free to vote for anyone. Just
because we have a system where one of two parties wins every election
doesn't mean you can't vote for anyone you want to.

Sure, you can vote for whoever you want, but a DEM or Rep will win. I'm
surprised you noticed that "we have a system where one of two parties
wins every election ".


Which, as I said, is the only reason anyone bought his books. I said
bought, not read.

I would tell you that all the books written by Sean Hannity, Bill
O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Oliver North, and a lot of other
right wingers only are bought because of who they are. Does that mean
they aren't best selling authors?

No, but it also doesn't mean anyone would buy their books if they
weren't media celebrities.

You need some sort of remedial logic course, although it's probably
too late. I stated a GENERAL principle, which you incorrectly
inferred to be a UNIVERSAL principle.

Which are you saying is a general principle? That you find it odd
that the right seems to respect only the 2nd of the BoR, while the
left respects all but the 2nd, or that sentence fragment about you
and your shooting friends?

The former.

Then I wouldn't say you finding it ironic that one party only supports
the 2nd amendment and the other supports all but that one is a general
principle of logic.

I did not say anything about a general principle of logic. Try to
respond to what I did say.

It's just a comment on something you believe is true, and may well not be.

Which is why I said "it seems...".

Did you actually attend some school for your alleged degree, or did
it come in the mail? If so, you were overcharged.

That's the thing about the uneducated. They never understand how much
more educated people know than they do.

But you continually demonstrate how little you know about politics that
its very hard to take you seriously.

You actually think if you got a
degree in political science from a reputable college you wouldn't know
that you are talking about the vertical axis with authoritarian on one
end and Libertarian on the other? That's basic. But not having taken the
courses to get a degree in poly sci, how would you know that?

So why do you misidentify libertarianism as being only conservative?

I got what I paid for. But it's clear you don't have a political
science degree.

Again, which diploma mill did you buy your poli sci rag from?

I told you California State University.

Yes, that was earlier in the message I'm replying to, do you expect me
to reply in an earlier message to something you said in a later message?


As far as I'm concerned there still is no difference between a
libertarian and a far right conservative. Maybe you can find
some kind of distinction. I can't.

I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference, I'm only
surprised that you still claim to be educated in poli sci.

Except it's not a claim. It's a statement of fact.

It may be a fact that you have a degree in poli sci, yet you continually
show that you are not well educated in poli sci.


Only a Libertarian can tell you that he's not just a very
conservative republican. To everyone else you're the same.

Who are you referring to? I'm about as conservative as Theodore
Roosevelt.

Yes, I remember, you're a left Libertarian. Big deal. So am I.

No, once again you fail in reading comprehension, I'm libertarian left.
Study the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote. If you see
none, if I were you, I'd ask for a refund on what you paid for your diploma.

Nah, I took some poli sci at Madison, but soon realized they were smoke
and mirrors. I think you got better value when you bought yours.

Smoke and mirrors, huh? You mean they were too tough for you to pass.

Got As, they were easy as soon as I realized the were BS so I just had
to write BS for the papers and exams.

Believe me, I know how difficult some of those classes are to pass. It's
not like getting a degree in P.E. or theatre.

Actually, unlike poli sci, PE and theater require a certain level of
talent to do well.

"Anyone with any political science expertise would know that one."

Exactly the reason I wasn't sure you would know it.

Like now you're the expert who is checking up on me. That's a good one.

Yes.

How would I know? The ll is a lot less organized than the lr,
especially the Libertarians, we of the ll type think anarchy is too
well organized.

I don't know how you know what you think. Do you have a newsletter
stating your positions?

OK, now you have to go look up "anarchy".

We have in common the disdain for authoritarianism as represented by the
Reps and Dems among others.

Me too, I'm anti establishment. Always have been.

Yet the Dems embody the Establishment. How do you deal with this
contradiction?

Interesting that you view minority opinions as jokes, though.

When they don't amount to anything and don't have any real organization
you can't take them seriously. In politics it's power that determines
everything. Tiny groups without any power are pretty irrelevant. You
need to join up with the big boys if you want to achieve anything.

You don't seem to notice that you already replied to this. Please try to
keep up.

Only from the small minded. Do you also ridicule children with Down's
Syndrome?

Most people find you not even worth ridiculing because they don't even
notice you. You're like a fruit fly. You're too small to even bother with.

I do enjoy the privacy of anonymity.


What's the deal with Down's Syndrome? You mean you don't joke about
them? What's your problem? No sense of humor. They can be very funny.

I'm not surprised you find them so. Odd that you accused me of being low
brow a few messages ago.


So the left PhDs praising Obama are wise and learned because the
represent the left, but the right PhDs who differ can have no
credibility because they represent the right. So simple.

I would expect that even right leaning Ph.Ds would tell you that
Obama has accomplished a lot too. If they are the least bit able to
be objective that's what they would say. They wouldn't like what he's
done but they would admit it has been a lot. Too bad you can't prove
I'm just a Democratic partisan as you would like.

You seem to be replying to something I didn't say.

You were saying I wouldn't give credit to right wing Ph.Ds, but I said I
would if they made a case built on objective facts and not just because
they hate Democrats.

So being objective means drinking Dem KoolAid?

Nope, just smiling and grinning at the changes all around.


That's for sure. Things have changed a lot since we finally got Bush out
of here.

Yes, I just wish those changes had been improvements.

Doesn't Dems voting with Reps also mean Reps are voting with Dems?

That's not what it is intended to mean. Although you could look at it
that way. It would be wrong.

So can you restate it in a way that doesn't expose your ignorance?

I might be able to do it so that someone on your level can understand it
but I can't guarantee it. Never mind. It's too complicated to explain to
you.

That condescending attitude is telling me that you can't restate it in a
way that doesn't expose your ignorance.


Obama also has done many things where he compromised with the
republicans and they haven't compromised on anything.

How can Obama compromise with Reps if they don't compromise with
him. Its a two street. If Obama is "compromising" when the Reps
aren't, he's not compromising, he's conceding defeat.

Do you read what you write?


Yeah. But it's clear you miss a lot of what was meant. When you
compromise with someone it doesn't mean it's always a 50/50 deal. Lots
of times you get more than the other side and the same for them.
Sometimes you compromise and get the worst end of the deal. That's not
the same as defeat, which you ought to know if you're as smart as you
think you are.

Once again, you are replying to something you have already replied to.
Please try to keep up.


Do you not understand what a compromise is? What do you call a
compromise where one side gets almost everything it wants and the
other side gets almost none of what it wanted? An unfair compromise?
A bad compromise? Whatever you call it Obama has been getting those
kind of compromises with republicans. He gives up a lot be gets very
little from the opposition.

Yes, that is called capitulation.

Go back to your dictionary because you don't understand the difference
between making a bad deal and capitulating. They are not the same.

Go back to your dictionary because you don't understand the difference
between making a bad deal and compromise. They are not the same.




Like the tax increases. Obama has done spending cuts but they
won't allow even a penny in tax increases, even on the top 1%. So
they are different.

Yes, the Reps are wrong here.

As about 80% of the public believes. But that doesn't phase the
republicans one bit because all they care about is the 1%, and getting
reelected.

Once again, you are replying to something you have already replied to.
Please try to keep up.



And I would say in most things.

Like the Dems, wrong in most things, but they sometimes get something
right.

I would say the Dems get things right WAY more than the republicans do.

Of course, I would expect you to say nothing else, KoolAid drinker.

Although Holder is on record as knowing nothing about it after he was
given a report on it. Maybe he doesn't have time to read it, like
Congress before they passed the Health Care (sic) bill.

Holder gets hundreds of memos that cross his desk every single day. He's
not going to pay attention to most of them. My guess is he let this go
by because it was of little importance to the Atty Gen of the U.S.,
that's more something for the agencies to deal with.

So he's not even competent to review what crossed his desk later so he
doesn't say he was never informed of it? This sure fills me with confidence.


They have bigger fish to fry than that just about every day.

Why would the US Attorney General have time for constitutional issues?

That's not a constitutional issue. It's a gun running issue and that has
been a problem all the way back to Clinton's presidency. It's hardly a
big fish. No president has treated it as such either.

That's because earlier versions of the program actually tried to track
the guns.

For one thing, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm libertarian left. Oh, that's
right, the poli sci grad doesn't know the difference.

Hair splitting to a level or irrelevance. Sorry we didn't notice you
son. You're so small we never knew you even existed.

My existence is firmer than your alleged education in poli sci if you
can't tell the difference between stating a political stance and
belonging to a specific political party.

Are all democrats members of the Democratic Party?

The difference is that the earlier attempt was done with the
cooperation of the Mexican Govt and there was an attempt to track
the guns involved.

They meant to track the guns in F & F too. Why else have the program? To
just give weapons to Mexicans for free? If they are giving away free
weapons to anyone let me know where, okay. I'll be right there.

No, they were being sold by FFL dealers who complained to the BATFE that
the purchases were illegitimate, but they were to let the sales go
through. The local BATFE officers testified that they were never given
any means of tracking the guns once they crossed the border.

The reason for this version of the program was that the DOJ wanted to
show that US bought weapons were being used by the cartels. Of course.
the cartels already had lots of real machine guns bought on the
international market.


I can sure understand why we didn't do this operation with the
Mexican government's knowledge.

So how did the BATFE expect to track the guns without cooperation from
the Mexican govt and therefore no legal authority to do anything in
Mexico? At least under Bush, they tried.

Just like you I don't know exactly how the program was run or what they
intended other than they were trying to stop or at least slow down the
flow of weapons to the cartels.

By selling weapons to the cartels? Do you read what you write?

Obviously, this was a ****ty program and
didn't do any of what they wanted it to. All that means is people made
mistakes. That's all.

Yes, and for mistakes that get Federal agents killed, people are fired
or they are asked to resign. First in line, Holder.

The one of the main complaints of the BATFE agents who testified before
Congress was that there was no mechanism set up at any time for tracking.

They should have noticed that shortcoming right away. I'd blame it on
whoever came up with the program and ran it not the Atty Gen or the
President.

The local BATFE agents did notice the "shortcoming" and when they
pointed it out to their superiors they were told to shut up.

You haven't read any of the Congressional testimony on this, have you?

Not really. Gun running between Mexico and the U.S. has been going on
for years.

Not by the US govt.

It wasn't this time either. It was a SNAFU. It was a bungled program. No
one meant to run guns to the cartels. Hardly. The intention was to stop it.

"By selling weapons to the cartels? Do you read what you write?"

Not by guns allowed to go into Mexico by the BATFE.

Just by guns bought in Az and taken to Mexico. I don't think the BATF
ever condoned that did they?

Yes.

"The local BATFE agents did notice the "shortcoming" and when they
pointed it out to their superiors they were told to shut up.

You haven't read any of the Congressional testimony on this, have you?"


Except for that whole govt involvement problem.

The only govt. involvement was for law enforcement to try to halt the
flow of guns to the south.

We can continue this after you have researched this issue enough to know
what you're talking about.

I guess we define the term "big deal" differently.

I'd say so.

Of course, it couldn't be bad if a Dem administration did it.

I don't blame any administration for the bungling by career people in
the agencies.

We can continue this after you have researched this issue enough to know
what you're talking about.

Congress seems to care about F&F, I'm watching to see what they
do.


You mean the republicans in congress care about F & F, don't you?

So you say the Dems don't have a problem with govt criminal activity?
Oh, right, it's no big deal.


More likely, the media will play it down because it makes their Anointed
One look bad.

They will play it down because in comparison to all the other stories
that come up in the next year this one is going to rank near the bottom
in terms of importance. The republicans are looking for ways to smear
Obama and this is just the latest trick. It's not really working for
them so they will probably drop it and look for something better. Their
problem is that as for legitimate things Obama has done wrong they can
go after there isn't much there. So they have to make it up. But that's
what they always do.

Yes, they're making up that dead Fed just to make Obama look bad.

Please don't bother replying until you've researched the issue.

David