Comments Posted By Still Liberal
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 99 Comments
A SHORT NOTE ON ADDUCING THE POLITICS OF ANYONE BY PERUSING THEIR BOOKSHELF
Thank you, sir. Just when common sense appears to be extinct, this is written. I see 10 books in the photo. And for the most part are grouped by a topic. I'm SHOCKED I tell you, shocked!!! And while I have not toured the WH library, it would not be a great shock if there were more than 10 books in it.
My nearest book shelve include Paul Krugman, Pope Benedict XVI, Shel Silverstein, Richard Dawkins, Milton Friedman, Mark Twain, Peggy Noonan, Thich Nhan Hahn and a DVD of Chicago's own Steve Goodman. I wonder what impression that would make on Mr. Port? I know, as a registered Independent, and a reader of things I may disagree with, I am a squishy middle of the roader without strong convictions.
And here I thought it was important to just be informed, not just consuming more of what I already think.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 18.02.2010 @ 14:11
It is amazing how much celebrity is confused with accomplishment in this country. People are enthralled that Sarah Palin draws large crowds and much of the candidate Barack Obama mystic was his ability to draw large, adoring crowds.
Larry the Cable Guy had about 30,000 people show up for a comedy show at the University of Nebraska. Does this amazing fact now allow him to run for President, or that his political musings gain importance? I don't think so, but he is just slightly below the razor thin levels of political accomplishment of candidates Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Obama and Palin share one other major factor: The only thing they seem firmly committed to is an overweening sense of self-importance and self-promotion.
Get er done!
Comment Posted By still liberal On 17.02.2010 @ 10:24
From the proposed legislation: "Guarantee of Contributions. Individuals who choose to invest in personal accounts will be ensured every dollar they place into an account will be guaranteed, even after inflation. With the recent market downturn, individuals must be assured their retirement is secure. By guaranteeing the dollars put into an account, individuals can be assured that a large-scale market downturn will not cost them their Social Security personal accounts."
Let's think this through. Wall Street can take trillions of Social Security dollars in "personal accounts" and throw them at any high risk scheme they can come up with for short term profits, and when it all collapses the government will pay off any losses to investors. Holy Christ on a crutch. You cannot be serious.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 13.02.2010 @ 09:15
Just like you conservatives to still think of paper as a solution. We have gone "green" you know. We are in the digital age now and paper is just so 20th Century.
Excuse me. I am now going to take a dump and wipe my butt with a Kindle. ;-)
Comment Posted By still liberal On 9.02.2010 @ 18:39
THE ETHICS OF 'WALKING AWAY' FROM YOUR MORTGAGE
Dear Widespreadpanic:
Here is another little factoid for your "moral" consideration. When you walk away from a mortgage, it is effectively a cancellation of debt, which can and often is then considered income. Income that is usually taxable income, unless it is a business, a farm, or a couple of other rare exemptions. Let me know how telling the IRS that there rules are subjective and inconsequential with Deontological ethics works out.
Arrogant and stupid. Not a good combination.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 4.02.2010 @ 17:10
Dear Widespreadpanic:
Here is another little factoid for your "moral" consideration. When you walk away from a mortgage, it is effectively a cancellation of debt, which can and often is then considered income. Income that is usually taxable income, unless it is a business, a farm, or a couple of other rare exemptions. Let me know how telling the IRS that there rules are subjective and inconsequential with Deontological ethics.
Arrogant and stupid. Not a good combination.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 4.02.2010 @ 17:09
WHAT'S ALL THE HUB-BUB ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE?
Third para, first sentence corrected as Liberals (nor any thinking person of any type) don't think . . . .
Comment Posted By still liberal On 23.01.2010 @ 21:31
Rick Moran said: "Many on the left are trying to make the point that corporations are not “people” and therefore, do not enjoy any free speech protections. This is a novel idea. It presumes that non-humans run the companies, work for them, and invest in them."
This is perhaps the stupidest statement you have ever made. A corporation is a legal personality, with limited rights. It is NOT the people that own it or work for it. For instance, a corporation cannot marry, vote or hold public office. It is, by definition, more limited in the legal rights than are afforded natural persons.
Liberals (nor any thinking person of any type) think that corporate officials are subhuman because they point out that corporations are separate from the people involved in the corporation. That bizarre jump in logic is beneath your intellectual ability.
If corporations are not separate from the people who own or work for them, then why in the hell would they exist? The legal protections afforded in incorporation are very important and limit the liability of the owners and employees. But bequeathing corporations free speech rights is foolish, destructive of many decades of legal precedent, and an unnecessary redefinition of corporations by right wing judicial activists.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 23.01.2010 @ 21:30
SARAH PALIN AS THE PIVOT FOR 'NEW' GOP
$100,000 to speak to the teabaggers. Now $549 to attend the teabaggers "grassroots" get-together. You betcha, this griftin gal is nobody's fool, also.
The right wing protesters have just sold their souls to the money machine and will get the same results as the fundamentalist Christians got when the sold their souls to the political money machine. Lip service and no actual results for their agenda.
"Stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump
Comment Posted By still liberal On 9.01.2010 @ 09:06
IS OBAMA BEING PRUDENT OR IS HE INCOMPETENT?
It would seem that the money spent on a non-9/11 related "War on Saddam" could have been better spent on improving intelligent gathering and sharing methodologies.
And just how does one win a "war on terrorism?" Al-Quaida is known to be in at least 50 countries. Do we invade them all to militarily root out the handful of extremists in each country, per Iraq and Afghanistan? Strip search everyone at the airport to look for weapons?
Profiling terrorists, gathering intelligence information, and putting everyone associated with terrorists on a no-fly list seems important. Incentivizing mainstream Muslims to denounce the misuse of Islam as a part of deterring the radicalization of Muslim malcontents will be money better spent than tens of thousands of soldiers stumbling around the AfPack border
Wars are fought between nations. Dealing with terrorists in primarily a legal battle, with some limited military involvement. Stop worrying about whether the situation is defined as a war and remember Dick Cheney is primarily responsible for cocking this up in the first place.
And yes, Ms. Napolitano should be fired immediately; heads must roll over this screwup.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 31.12.2009 @ 13:25
