Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll discuss this substantively if you will.

Big leap for both of us, maybe.

Its been discussed substantively. He knows I'm right. It was win 8.
his point is lots of people, read-not governments, (yes people who weren't in a position to know) believed (had faith) Sadaam had no weapons.

It kind of like on the practice when Jimmy says to the doctor, "Sure you think that, but you can't be sure" because there is this seemingly limited exception. Only Atticus' case is strengthened because the "exception" turned out to be right.

But argue away. i'm not one to criticize overposting.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its been discussed substantively. He knows i'm right. it was win 8.
his pointis lots of people, read not governments, (yes people who weren't in a position to know) believed (had faith) Sadaam had no weapons.

It ind of like on the practice wjen Jimmy says to the doctor, "Sure you think that, but you can't be sure" because there is this seemingly minute exception. only Atticus' case is stengthend because the "exception" turned out to be right.

But argue away. i'm not one tocriticize overposting.

Personally, I love your posts - but sometimes you let the typos interfere with the message. When I've been drinking, (days ending in the letter "y"), I need some support, in the way of spelling. WTF?




(eta: you put in text symbiols, and this supplies fucking smilies?! shit)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Personally, I love your posts - but sometimes you let the typos interfere with the message. When I've been drinking, (days ending in the letter "y"), I need some support, in the way of spelling. WTF?




(eta: you put in text symbiols, and this supplies fucking smilies?! shit)

My god.I has no idea my typos had gotten that bad. i'm fixing them, but this is to record bilmore was right.

but note: substantively, I'm correct.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
For such a brilliant guy, he certainly puts himself in recusal's way enough.

What was that you said about Clinton -- hubris?

Just the devout Catholic version here (so no nookie with interns).

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Now, don't feel bad. If you had erroneously accused John Kerry of having committed Bob Kerrey's war crimes* and whatnot, then you should feel bad. {Thanks, Wonkette!}

*NY Daily News. Scroll to bottom.

The man left half a leg in Vietnam, won the Medal of Honor, and serve his country for decades as a responsible, principled public servant.

It takes a lot more than a casual reference in a blog to the death of 21 civilians to make Bob Kerrey a war criminal. In fact, even if those deaths occurred, he would be a "war criminal" only if the deaths were intentionally caused, or caused through gross reckelssness, without justification under the circumstances.

Unless you know and have documented far more than you have thus far coyly let on, you should -- at a minimum -- have the basic decency to refrain from appalling slander.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was reading this with mild interest until I came across this:

After introspection, the answer for me at least as clear. We worked very hard for years to repair the damage that Ronald Reagan and company had done to America's fisc.

End of discussion for me.

Edited to Add:

Should have scolled and read Slave's post before posting. My bad.

I also think that the post was heavily salted with bullshit.

However, You guys need to abandon the fucking blind hero-worship at some point. Let's not pretend that the 8 years of huge Reagan deficits plus 4 years of carry-over under Bush I, did not do "damage . . to America's fisc". Really, that was one of the milder phrasings in the post.

[Now I await the horse's head in the bed.]

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What was that you said about Clinton -- hubris?

Exactly. What a mind. What a persona. What a waste.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The man left half a leg in Vietnam, won the Medal of Honor, and serve his country for decades as a responsible, principled public servant.

It takes a lot more than a casual reference in a blog to the death of 21 civilians to make Bob Kerrey a war criminal. In fact, even if those deaths occurred, he would be a "war criminal" only if the deaths were intentionally caused, or caused through gross reckelssness, without justification under the circumstances.

Unless you know and have documented far more than you have thus far coyly let on, you should -- at a minimum -- have the basic decency to refrain from appalling slander.

S_A_M

Kerrey fucked Debra Winger. atticus imagines ncs looks like Debra Winger. This is the justification for his post- not some blog.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There were voices of doubt throughout the process. Remember the murder marchers? The traitors, etc.?

They mostly weren't doubting the WMD, as I recall and perceived -- and there was no rational dispute that Hussein was in violation of the various resolutions. They opposed the War because they, variously hate War, or hate the U.S., or hate the U.S. using force against third world nations, or feared the consequences, or believed that a few WMD in Hussein's hands weren't enough justification.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I also think that the post was heavily salted with bullshit.

However, You guys need to abandon the fucking blind hero-worship at some point. Let's not pretend that the 8 years of huge Reagan deficits plus 4 years of carry-over under Bush I, did not do "damage . . to America's fisc". Really, that was one of the milder phrasings in the post.

[Now I await the horse's head in the bed.]

S_A_M

No one younger than me has blind hero worship of Reagan, and I'm pretty sure SC is younger than me. One can "worship" what Reagan did in a realistic way. He reintroduced a whole new old way of thinking back into American thought that was accurate, and quite good for us.

[Dave]

Originally posted by bilmore

You can obviate a deficit in a second by popping inflation, or devaluing. Why not do those things? Make it more expensive to buy Jap and Kraut cars - make it less advantageous to hire Indian labor - make it less fun to make Nikes in the Phillipines - what's our downside there? Look at how fast we can kill a deficit, and, at the same time, reduce the rest of the world to dependance on our largesse. I don't think the rest of the world, or AG and Ty, realize how dependant they are on our nicety, and how fast we could fix our own problems by fucking them. I consider it a sign of weakness in Bush that he hasn't done this yet. I'm sure Cheney has suggested it.

And I don't think we recognize how dependent we are on the rest of the world being courteous enough to finance our massive current account deficit.

It works both ways. We kick the legs out from under China et al by devaluing, they retaliate by yanking all their money out of Treasuries and putting it into whatever the new safe investment is. Everybody's economy goes directly into the crapper.

This is of course a simplistic analysis, but there are downsides to devaluing that ought to be taken into consideration, and I don't just mean that your next trip to Lichtenstein would cost more.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
No one younger than me has blind hero worship of Reagan, and I'm pretty sure SC is younger than me. One can "worship" what Reagan did in a realistic way. He reintroduced a whole new old way of thinking back into American thought that was accurate, and quite good for us.

OK -- but that has nothing to do with whether any mild neagtive reference to his economic policies should be enough to justify a sharp negative reaction and dismissal of the entire argument. Club's reaction, in particular, struck me as not entirely rational.

S_A_M

P.S. Club -- When you say that the current deficit (i.e. between 4% about 5% of GDP if the CBO is correct, is "just over' those of the Clinton years -- you'd best specify the years. You can't be talking about the three(?) years of surplus.]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Dave
And I don't think we recognize how dependent we are on the rest of the world being courteous enough to finance our massive current account deficit.

It works both ways. We kick the legs out from under China et al by devaluing, they retaliate by yanking all their money out of Treasuries and putting it into whatever the new safe investment is. Everybody's economy goes directly into the crapper.

This is of course a simplistic analysis, but there are downsides to devaluing that ought to be taken into consideration, and I don't just mean that your next trip to Lichtenstein would cost more.

See, I disagree with this, to the extent that it assumes that productivity exists in more places than just here. (In a relative sense, of course.)

I think we could do this. I think that we would end up bluffing them out and winning, but, if we had to, we could carry it off. They're not "financing" us. They're investing their currency in the only stable account. We own that bank.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
They mostly weren't doubting the WMD, as I recall and perceived -- and there was no rational dispute that Hussein was in violation of the various resolutions. They opposed the War because they, variously hate War, or hate the U.S., or hate the U.S. using force against third world nations, or feared the consequences, or believed that a few WMD in Hussein's hands weren't enough justification.

We must have been going to different murder marches. I thought a large part of the compelling case against war was the quasi-criminal "innocent until proven guilty" standard of proof --- that you can't* invade a sovereign nation until you had the evidence the UN and Blix were looking for. "Let the inspections work" was a sincerely held belief, at least among My People. Then again, I hang out with rational people like Ty and Sidd who reserved the right to bust a cap in SH's ass if he held a nuke, and who reacted to Powell's UN speech with caveats like "if true." Shit, as I recall, some of us changed our position based on that speech, b/c of Powell's greater credibility among the left and the belief that while Bush can pound the tables with his core voters, he's not going to bluff the entire world community.

*Really, "shouldn't," as should be obvious by now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oh, ok. Sure. Because, god knows, tenured professors would never give up their intellectual pursuits for a juicy government appointment. Are you working on your stand-up routine?

He already had a gig in the Treasury Dept. without being bitter. And this sort of stuff does not help you if you need to be confirmed by the Senate.

1) His comment about Reagan is slanted and you know it.

No, it isn't. He said "We worked very hard for years to repair the damage that Ronald Reagan and company had done to America's fisc." We ran up huge deficits under Reagan, and it took us years to get the budget right again.

2) Yes, I agree with that hearsay quote attributed to VP Cheney by the irrelevant former Treasury Secy O'Neil that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" (further, that the IMF says they do, offers clear and definitive proof to me that they do not). What Reagan also proved, however, is that curtailing runaway government spending and cutting federal programs DOES matter, and neither this POTUS nor any of these assjacks trying to replace him seem to be doing or saying anything to suggest any intent to do this.

Make up your mind: Either deficits matter, and you are going to try to slink around the facts that the Treasury Secretary says Cheney said they don't and that Cheney and Bush clearly don't give a rip about running up massive deficits, or they don't, and you can stand proudly with Cheney and pretend like you're dealing with a bunch of pointy-headed foreigners at the IMF. It would be kind of refreshing if you'd stake out the latter position, since all of the conservatives posting here seem to be in the former camp -- you know, agreeing with the IMF.

Under Clinton -- that would be when DeLong was in the Treasury Department -- the federal budget was balanced. So quit bellyaching about what the Dem candidates are saying -- they're playing on Bush's field now, and you're not going to get elected by telling the American people the truth unless someone starts holding him accountable for his crap. That could start with more O'Neills.

And you are being blatantly naive. This guy is a cry-baby.

The guy writes about policy. I understand that you guys don't really care about that stuff.