«

»

Recess Time

Barack Obama has just made a recess appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He’a also about to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. It’s fairly standard for Presidents to make recess appointments. And under Bush, it became standard when the Democrats obstructed appointments to open positions. There’s only one problem: the Senate is not in recess.

Congressional Republicans were furious Wednesday after President Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, arguing the move was unconstitutional because the Senate has met every three or four days over the holiday period and therefore was not on a recess.

“This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama,” complained House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement, saying it “would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our constitution.”

“This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

A few caveats here. First, the Senate is only sort of in session. It’s mainly pro forma, pretending to be open precisely to prevent recess appointments. Second, the Republicans have been acting like world class twerps on this matter. They aren’t opposed to Cordray, who is qualified (as was Warren). They are opposed to anyone being appointed to head the CFPB. And their opposition to the NLRB has a similar motivation, since that board — a board authorized by law — is one chair away from no longer being able to legally function. And the NLRB nominees are qualified (one is a Republican). This isn’t just standard filibustering of a controversial candidate. That would be bad enough. This is backdoor effort to disable two agencies that are supposed to exist, no matter how much we might not like them.

I said it when Bush was President; I’ve said it several times since Obama became President: elections have consequences. The Senate approval process is supposed to be a process, not a roadblock used to disable parts of the government. Qualified people should be appointed to positions for which they have been nominated, no matter how much we don’t like the positions or them.

All that having been said, two wrongs do not make a right. The Democrats pulled this pro forma crap too. Had Bush responded this way, the halls of Congress would have been filled with the sighs of Democrats fainting from such an egregious abuse of the process. Barack Obama, as Senator, was not exactly screaming to end filibusters when he could have done something about it (he was not part of the Gang of 14).

All sides are acting like spoiled little children, playing a game of “he started it.” It’s shit like this that makes me go up to Washington with a 2×4 and start whomping any Senator who gets within range. I don’t give a shit who started it. It needs to stop.

Violating the rules again is not the way to stop it, though. The Republicans got through this when Bush was President by finding Democrats who would let judicial candidates through. Scott Brown, at least, has indicated he would allow votes to proceed and I’m certain other Republicans could be cajoled or shamed into it.

71 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    This is backdoor effort to disable two agencies that are supposed to exist, no matter how much we might not like them.

    Why do these two agencies exist at all? Why are either one of the entities allowed to suck more taxpayer money?

    And in my humble opinion the senate republicans have given several very good reasons why Richard Cordray is the wrong person for the job.

    As for the NLRB… is there one earthly reason this cluster-fuck should exist? It stymies economic growth where ever it casts it’s gaze. The republicans were correct in blocking ANY new board members until after the Nov. election. And then repeal it.

    Glad to see you’re back to form with your ‘ Democrats bad but republican worse‘ meme. It just wouldn’t be a Hal post otherwise.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Miguelito says:

    All sides are acting like spoiled little children, playing a game of “he started it.” It’s shit like this that makes me go up to Washington with a 2×4 and start whomping any Senator who gets within range.

    A little slip that made you forget the _want to_ in there? :)

    Otherwise you’ve kept yourself out of the news quite well.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Hal_10000 says:

    Why do these two agencies exist at all? Why are either one of the entities allowed to suck more taxpayer money?

    As for the NLRB… is there one earthly reason this cluster-fuck should exist? It stymies economic growth where ever it casts it’s gaze. The republicans were correct in blocking ANY new board members until after the Nov. election. And then repeal it.

    Well then kiss the rule of law goodbye. Both of these agencies were created by Congress. The president is constiitutionally obligated to run them. You want to abolish them? Pass a law. You would be singing a very different tune if some governor refused to, say, appoint anyone to enforce the new voter ID laws.

    Glad to see you’re back to form with your ‘ Democrats bad but republican worse‘ meme. It just wouldn’t be a Hal post otherwise.

    I don’t see how you can interpret the post that way. I specifically said the Democrats pulled this pro forma crap too and note President Bush did *not* take this route.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    One thing I should have said in the original post: this action by Obama has made things much worse. He’s not put the GOP into a position where they can’t back down at all. It would be politically disastrous. This looks like an election move to me; trying to paint the Republicans as extremists even if it means breaking the process. Obama can be a dick.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Mississippi Yankee says:

    One thing I should have said in the original post:

    Nice save!

    Here is my reasoning on NOT allowing a Dowd – Frank czar as it is being implemented.

    As it stands, the bureau remains under the Treasury Department. The minute a director is sworn in, the agency will transfer to the fed for administrative purposes, but will effectively have free rein. The Fed’s authority over it is illusory. And it would be impossible for the Dodd-Frank czar to be removed by a change of administration because his term is five years and his tenure protected.

    Rule of law has nothing to do with this, it’ all strong arm tactics and Kabuki Theater

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Allow me to add this portion too.

    Senate Republicans have vowed to block Cordray or any other candidate for the job until key reforms are made to the sweeping law and its half-billion-dollar enforcement arm, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The common-sense changes include subjecting the CFPB to the congressional appropriations process instead of the Federal Reserve; restoring independent judicial review; ensuring that it takes into account the impact of new rules on the safety and soundness of financial institutions; and creating a bipartisan oversight board instead of a single director to run the agency.

    Obama himself supported such a panel — before he opposed and demagogued it.

    Part of my other comment was a quote also.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Seattle Outcast says:

    It’s shit like this that’s behind the recent surge in gun buying. Toss in the DHS and other agencies all acting like the secret police from the USSR, and people see the writing on the wall: the USA is fast becoming a far-left police state run by a puppet dictator.

    Maybe CM can come over and explain to us all how that’s a good thing.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  8. Seattle Outcast says:

    As for the NLRB… is there one earthly reason this cluster-fuck should exist?

    No, except that it’s a payoff for big labor whenever the libtards want to curry favor or need to extort a large company (like Boeing) in return for “campaign donations”…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16

      
  10. Seattle Outcast says:

    Troll.

    Aren’t you done with that chicken yet?

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

      
  11. AlexInCT says:

    Barack Obama has just made a recess appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He’a also about to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

    Except that, you know, congress is not in recess, which you would know unless you are limiting your information on this travesty to the usual LSM outlets that have not reported this fact, which means that these appointments are NOT recess appointments and do not meet that standard. The Senate had people showing up on the very day Obama did this recess appointment, and they where doing this specifically to prevent anyone from claiming congress is in recess right now, making this appointment unconstitutional. Even NPR, which as usual makes excuses for why this travesty was still a good deal, admits that the Senate was not in recess. Rules only apply when they help leftist twits I guess. Can you image the LSM outcry if Bush had done something like this when they employed this tactic to block him from making recess appointments?

    As other non-LSM sources – which makes them far more trustworthy on any of the tyrannical anti-constitution crap the crooks now shitting all over the constitution are – point out, this appointment will end up being meaningless because Dodd-Frank requires, by law, for the Senate to confirm the job Cordray got. Do not expect that to deter Cordray or the Obama Admin from simply ignoring what they do not like or abrogating themselves power they do not have, as the last few years have shown us (EPA anyone?).

    I think Obama and Team Blue knew damned well that what they did was illegal but do not care. As others are pointing out: this is about their 365/24/7 campaigning strategy, and not much else. What they want is a sound bite for Obama to use, about how Congress is blocking his “bold moves” – that’s in quotation to make sure we distinguish the lies in that sound bite from the fact that this is nothing but a cynical unconstitutional power grab, done to create the stage for that sound bite, and to stress that the bold here is how these crooks are more concerned with keeping power than the damage they, and their policies, have done to the US so far – and he is not going to let that happen. Only the idiots that get their propaganda spoon fed by the LSM will fall for this illegal and meaningless nonsense. Especially when you point out that Harry Reid and Team Blue control the Senate – which is part of congress, unless the constitution and the way our government works was suddenly changed in the laste few weeks, while nobody was looking – and have been doing practically all the obstructing. Something the LSM has been covering up or ignoring, as usual. But hey, it is the people that do not get thie propaganda from the LSM that are the ill informed rubes.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    Well then kiss the rule of law goodbye. Both of these agencies were created by Congress. The president is constiitutionally obligated to run them. You want to abolish them? Pass a law. You would be singing a very different tune if some governor refused to, say, appoint anyone to enforce the new voter ID laws.

    I think that was precisely his point Hal: why do we need them? Have congress abolish them!

    I find it disingenuous on your part when you infer that those of us that think these agencies are rogue entities that circumvent the constitution and the system it creates while wasting massive amounts of tax payer dollars think they need to be done away with in an unconstitutional way. But I do understand the reason you do it.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  13. AlexInCT says:

    Aren’t you done with that chicken yet?

    I wish I could vote for that more than once…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

      
  14. Hal_10000 says:

    Except that, you know, congress is not in recess

    Um, didn’t I just say that?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  15. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

      
  16. Seattle Outcast says:

    Yeah that doesn’t make sense.

    Remember when I said you didn’t understand American culture? You just proved it.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  17. CM says:

    Remember when I said you didn’t understand American culture? You just proved it.

    Nah you’re just being a dick. That’s a problem internationally.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  18. AlexInCT says:

    Um, didn’t I just say that?

    A few caveats here. First, the Senate is only sort of in session. It’s mainly pro forma, pretending to be open precisely to prevent recess appointments.

    It is not “sort of” in session Hal: by the rules it IS in session. Period. If democrats could do this to prevent Bush from doing recess appointments and everyone expected Bush to play by the rules, then why does this not apply to Obama? Why do we have to say it is “sort of” in session now? Why is the media not harping on this? They constantly reported the Senate was in session when demcorats did this, why is it now in recess because their guy is shitting all over the constitution?

    Nah you’re just being a dick. That’s a problem internationally.

    Oh, the irony!

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    Oh, the irony!

    Are you (ironically) alluding to the stereotype that Americans don’t understand irony?

    Apparently Seattle wants me to believe that trolling is part of American culture. Or reacting is. Or not reacting to trolling is. Or something.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  20. AlexInCT says:

    Are you (ironically) alluding to the stereotype that Americans don’t understand irony?

    Seems you have that problem you ascribe to my fellow countrymen in spades.

    Apparently Seattle wants me to believe that trolling is part of American culture. Or reacting is. Or not reacting to trolling is. Or something.

    And here I thought he asked you about that chicken you were involved with… :)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Seems you have that problem you ascribe to my fellow countrymen in spades.

    I’d bet a large amount of money you’d be unable to explain how.

    Seattle being a troll somehow results in me fucking a chicken. If that’s American culture then he’s 100% right, I don’t understand it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  22. AlexInCT says:

    I’d bet a large amount of money you’d be unable to explain how.

    Since I can’t collect, I won’t bother much.

    Seattle being a troll somehow results in me fucking a chicken. If that’s American culture then he’s 100% right, I don’t understand it.

    No, you being a troll should result in you fucking a chicken. But nice try, but you made his point for him.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  23. CM says:

    Since I can’t collect, I won’t bother much.

    Thought so.

    No, you being a troll should result in you fucking a chicken. But nice try, but you made his point for him.

    Try reading the thread.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  24. Seattle Outcast says:

    So what part of you fucking the chicken isn’t making sense? How it applies to you? Or didn’t you catch the irony?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Xetrov says:

    http://werkinggerl.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/pointless.jpg

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. hist_ed says:

    Uhhh, I hate to admit that I ain’t up on all that hep cat lingo you young-uns use, but I have to say I can’t divine any deep meaning in the phrase “fucking the chicken.” Perhaps someone could explain it to me.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. CM says:

    As far as I can tell, it means you just proved that you don’t understand American culture.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  28. JimK says:

    Honestly, it’s like you fucking numbnuts(es) don’t have the internet. Here, let me google that for you ;)

    The phrase has come to mean – at least in the blogosphere – commenters doing the same shit over and over again, ending up being about as useful and meaningful as…yep…fucking a chicken.

    It describes CM all day long. Chickens the world over are lubing up as we speak, because they know that eventually, it’ll be their turn.

    In fairness, there’s a lot of chicken fucking around here that doesn’t involve CM, so I really shouldn’t single him out so harshly. Sorry CM. But you do tend to fuck a lot of chickens.
    JimK recently posted..Galaxy Nexus battery lifeMy Profile

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  29. hist_ed says:

    Honestly, it’s like you fucking numbnuts(es) don’t have the internet

    Internet, huh? I think I’ve heard about this internet thing. Maybe I’ll look it up on that Google you mentioned.

    And alas, since the birth of my last child lo these four or five months, my nuts ain’t been numbed much. Here’s hopin’ for more action in 2012.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    Sorry CM. But you do tend to fuck a lot of chickens.

    Are you guys really this sensitive about your opinions/positions?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  31. JimK says:

    So what’s funnier: CM asking other people if they’re sensitive about their opinions, or the fact that he choose to quote what was clearly a good-natured ribbing line in order to highlight his sense of butt-hurt?

    Chickens: RUN. RUN LIKE THE WIND, YOU’RE ABOUT TO GET FUCKED HARD.
    JimK recently posted..Galaxy Nexus battery lifeMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    I don’t mind good-natured ribbing, nor do I mind my opinions being challenged. But this is clearly a case of trolling, pure and simple. There is no opinion of mine being challenged here. He’s clearly now running a campaign because he seems to resent the fact that the internet extends beyond the United States.

    If that’s acceptable (and it clearly is because you’re jumping right on-board, whether you want to dress it up as ‘good natured ribbing’ or whatever), then for-christ’s-sake please don’t ever warn me about doing the same thing.

    RIP Moorewatch forums.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  33. Seattle Outcast says:

    I don’t mind good-natured ribbing, nor do I mind my opinions being challenged. But this is clearly a case of trolling, pure and simple. There is no opinion of mine being challenged here. He’s clearly now running a campaign because he seems to resent the fact that the internet extends beyond the United

    All of your opinions are being challenged – mainly because you post a bunch of BS here on a constant basis and utterly contrary to the flavor of this blog. THAT makes you a troll. I’m curious that you don’t know what a troll is – you seem to be using a definition that is out of Tolkein or something.

    Anyway, it’s time for you to get another chicken, ’cause the first one is dead.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    All of your opinions are being challenged – mainly because you post a bunch of BS here on a constant basis and utterly contrary to the flavor of this blog.

    What you’re saying is that I don’t automatically follow the conservative line, and don’t automatically accept all the ‘facts’ that are presented. That’s the ‘flavor’ you apparently seek. But instead of engaging on anything (you know, with some substance) you’d prefer to just get personal. It’s extraordinarily weak and lame. Personal attacks and childish trolling isn’t even remotely ‘challenging’ any opinion or mine, or information I have presented. It’s actively avoiding it.

    THAT makes you a troll. I’m curious that you don’t know what a troll is – you seem to be using a definition that is out of Tolkein or something.

    I see what you did there! Trolls are in LOTR! And…..ah…..nope, that seems to be it.

    You seem to consider anything other than what I stated above as trolling behaviour. Anything that doesn’t adhere to a narrow range of thinking and information is apparently considered trolling.

    Anyway, it’s time for you to get another chicken, ’cause the first one is dead.

    You seem to now be fucking the fucking the chicken chicken.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  35. JimK says:

    Honestly, CM, all kidding aside, you are kind of being a whiny cunt right now. This whole episode is very Manwhore of you, and it’s a decidedly unattractive side of your personality.

    Maybe you and the internet should take a short break so you can get some perspective, or at least let your hair trigger rest a bit.
    JimK recently posted..Galaxy Nexus battery lifeMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    I had a feeling it might go like this. I point out that I’m responding to specific trolling aimed at me, in multiple threads, after I’ve been away for a couple of weeks, and it means I’m a whiny cunt. And it’s a ‘whole episode’.

    Perspective? I think the whole idea being reinforced here is that this isn’t a place for perspective.

    Where are you asking SO, the guy who is trolling, to give his hair-trigger a rest? I always thought you were reasonably even-handed but this is ridiculous.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  37. JimK says:

    I think the whole idea being reinforced here is that this isn’t a place for perspective.

    You are always welcome to GTFO if it really bothers you that much. Since you never actually do, I suspect it doesn’t bother you nearly as much as you make it seem. In fact, I think you welcome – nay thrive – on the back and forth bullshit, and the longer it goes the happier you get.

    You are welcome to prove me wrong.
    JimK recently posted..Galaxy Nexus battery lifeMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  38. ilovecress says:

    At the risk of inflaming things further – I’m going to (sort of) come to CMs defence here.

    This is a right wing blog. I get that. But the thing that has made it the best right wing blog (In my opinion) that I have visited most days since about 2003 is that there is a constant stream of left leaning types who challenge the posters and get real debate going.

    I don’t want to speak for CM, but the reason I’ve stuck around so long is precicely because it isn’t an echo chamber. Things are posted and challenged – then defended. If being a lefty and challenging opinions on a right wing blog is ‘trolling’ then so be it. It’s what makes this blog so great.

    But I don’t think it is – this blog has a pretty efficient eco-system that genuinely weeds out the ‘proper’ trolls’ – and I think you’ll see us lefties joining in on driving them out – because to be honest they don’t help our side any either.

    Having said that, hte more recent CM/Alex/SO bickering has got fucking boring, and never actually relates to the actual topic – more of a tit for tat accusation of lying and misrepresentation. Yawn.

    So guys, if you want to know why CM comes here, I can’t speak for him – but as another left-winger, non US, Kiwi resident, I know that the robust debate is why I visit the site. I realise that I’m going to be in the minority, and I know I’m going to have to put up with a lot of shit from the majority that ‘isn’t on my side’ – but that’s precisely why this is way more interesting than being a lefty on a left blog.

    And CM – I know it’s annoying – but that’s the life of a lefty on a right wing site. You have chosen to try and convince 99% of the readers to your point of view. It’s going to get ugly, and you’re going to have to work harder than just posting the word ‘troll’. That’s just boring.

    And the rest of you – insulting CM doesn’t beat him in the argument. SO – you invited him to ‘fuck the chicken’ – making what should have been a really interesting post another boring schoolyard petty argument. Yawn.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  39. Mississippi Yankee says:

    RIP Moorewatch forums.

    CM, in the past I’ve accused you of being a loquacious troll and an ‘agent provocateur’. The latter probably closer to the truth. I further believe your sole purpose here is disruption, at the least, if not out right destruction of this site.

    Will the history book show RTFTLC fell precisely because the same actor played the same games from Moorewatch?

    Acting like a GINK was a common negative accusation in New England during my father’s time. My generation was a little cruder with names like “cunt-head” But you gotta admit, it does roll off the tongue quite nicely.
    And no poultry were harmed in the course of this altercation.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Well said Cress. Although I would disagree that I’m trying to convince anyone of anything.

    Will the history book show RTFTLC fell precisely because the same actor played the same games from Moorewatch?

    No, I think it “fell” because posters dropped off as the same topics came up yet again and the same people didn’t want to have the same arguments. And not enough new people arrived because Michael Moore became increasingly irrelevant. And in the end it fell because JimK had to consolidate.

    The MW forum seemed to have many more conservative/libertarian posters who were happy to engage in substantive discussions, and not resort to personal crap or blatant dishonesty like it does here almost immediately. Quite often after a robust argument we’d have a laugh and move on to something else. Yeah, sometimes it would get ugly, but only for a while and then it would end and be forgotten.I have a few right-wingers as Facebook friends or are otherwise in contact with them, which is surely some indication that there was a hell of a lot more perspective than evidenced here.

    That’s why I say RIP. I really do miss it. But perhaps, as Poosh said, it’s because this is a blog (i.e. an echo chamber) and isn’t designed or meant to be a place for discussion (beyond various forms of agreement). What cress describes above doesn’t seem to reflect my experience here. It seems to me that anyone left or liberal is tolerated on the surface, but really everyone would much prefer they leave, and indirectly takes action to try and make that happen. As I’ve said before, I don’t really understand what the point of that is.

    I further believe your sole purpose here is disruption, at the least, if not out right destruction of this site.

    Nothing could be further from the truth and I say that sincerely. That would serve no purpose. Actually it would only mean I’d need to look for somewhere new to live. I don’t really want to do that if I can help it.

    Anyway, I’ll just ignore any references to me and chickens from now on…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. Poosh says:

    I didn’t say it was an echo chamber CM. Your decided that’s what I said. I, time and time again, try to explain to you that you can’t just walk into a blog – ANY BLOG – and demand to see the evidence for statements made between fellow travelers – do you know how annoying is being asked to take 30 minutes out of your day to find a link, just to make X or Y happy? Everyone else in the room has probably read that link weeks or months ago, but you demand them! Of course you can be polite and ask – and they would oblige you, but you are never polite or well-mannered. You just troll everything. There’s a difference between being challenging and asking if people are open to a debate, and just being rude. It’s no different to how you would behave in real life. And as for your stupid claim that this is an echo chamber, there are plenty of disagreements. And did it occur to you that no one tolerates you because you are WRONG and you display a bad grasp of logic? Rather than everyone else being irrational fox-news viewing fools. Did it occur to you that people expect a better quality debate than what you give? There are and have been liberals here that don’t get abuse. There are libertarians and conservatives here who see seem to get along for the most part. It seems to be just you. None of this will get into your head, but maybe ten years down the line, maybe something awful will happen, and suddenly it might click.

    The f*cking authors of this blog don’t even agree on everything, yet you think it’s some sort of exercise in group think, just because no-one is defective enough in cognitive powers to think the same way you do, and read the same things you read.

    I just wish Drumwaster was here to smack you down. He seemed pretty efficient at it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  42. Kimpost says:

    If CM’s so WRONG and failing in the logic department, shooting him down should be a breeze, shouldn’t it Poosh? Seems to me that some of you guys are way too lazy.

    Sure, CM has a bias. But who hasn’t? As someone who’s “known” him for some years I would frankly park him somewhere in the US liberal mainstream. There’s not a shred of extremism in any of his views, yet you (some) seem to regard him as a card carrying communist. :) Perhaps it’s time for some of you guys to calm the fuck down and look at the bigger picture here. The polarization, most of it, is in your heads. We agree on way more than we disagree. We are all for free trade. We are all for a mixed economy form of capitalism. We are all for democracy and individual freedom. Me, Alex, MY, SO, CM and even the oh-so horrible Obama who most of you wishes to get the hell out of the White House.

    There are still important differences, which should be debated, but pretending to not agree on fundamentals like the ones I just stated, is either disingenuous or stupid. People acting as such deserves to be called on it – again and again and again. Even if it might annoy the hell out of some of you.

    Sometimes I too think that CM takes things too personally. Or that he’s to quick to counter attack. Or that he should just let things go. But most of the times I agree with him. Besides, it’s really not difficult to debate him, as long as you stay honest and clear from the outrageous. When you do that you tend to end up agreeing to disagree. It’s politics after all, not maths. I’ve seen that happen many times at the old MW, and I’ve also seen it here.

    Now, if you choose to suggest that Obama has ordered the EPA to destroy the US economy, you have either stumbled over some incredible evidence, or you have (more likely) entered Ridiculous Territory (TM). The same goes for Obama’s forging birth certificates, being a Socialist, or a Manchurian candidate plotting to kill Mexicans to pass gun grabbing legislature. Or what the fuck not. Anything is possible in the blogosphere, it seems.

    Poosh, you might be on to something when you are suggesting that some of you guys are tired of backing things up because you see them as self-evident. Others (also around here) seem to use the liberal arguments put forth to help keeping you honest, to help strengthening your own arguments with facts instead of just repeating blog talking points. I think that’s the healthier approach.

    Now, can I have one of those chickens?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  43. balthazar says:

    Oh Kim, I love how you lump a topic that is being proven more and more every time a news article comes out about it (Gunwalker) with the obvious conspiracy stuff.

    YES they actually DID let them walk to help get more regulation passed. There is a memo from the ATF on the exact subject. Educate yourself.

    The ATF wanted to use the sales that they told gun owners to make, as evidence for enacting a limit on long gun sales. It’s in black and fucking white. It’s not hard to find, look it up.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  44. Xetrov says:

    I think we should all just sit down and eat the chickens (though not the previously F’d ones).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. balthazar says:

    If you can find an unfucked one, good luck with that, I think all the chickens in existance have been fucked by CM at one time or another during the AGW debates!

    Extra protein?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  46. Kimpost says:

    Oh Kim, I love how you lump a topic that is being proven more and more every time a news article comes out about it (Gunwalker) with the obvious conspiracy stuff.

    That’s all well and good, but all of the obvious conspiracy stuff I cited, have been voiced here. By front page contributors even. Well, one former front page contributor, but still.

    YES they actually DID let them walk to help get more regulation passed. There is a memo from the ATF on the exact subject. Educate yourself.

    The ATF wanted to use the sales that they told gun owners to make, as evidence for enacting a limit on long gun sales. It’s in black and fucking white. It’s not hard to find, look it up.

    A memo or no memo, I’ll believe in The Grand Conspiracy* when I see it. Show us the evidence (tapes, transcripts, witness-reports). Someone from the DOJ asking for data from ATF means absolutely nothing. Not even if someone at the DOJ would say that the reason for the request was to try to find data supporting gun control measures. Someone needs to link the possible requests to The Grand Conspiracy. As far as I’ve been able to see it’s “just” a fucked up operation. Highly mismanaged. Which. Is. Bad. Enough.

    *) Here’s the rub of The Grand Conspiracy. Which is the one I find to be ridiculous.

    Obama: – Let’s plant weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, so that they’ll kill each other and civilians. I just loooove to see some dead bodies. If we do that, then it’ll be easier to pass tougher gun regulations. I just loooove stricter gun laws.

    Holder: – I’ll set the brilliant scheme up!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. Poosh says:

    If CM’s so WRONG and failing in the logic department, shooting him down should be a breeze, shouldn’t it Poosh?

    No. It’s exactly because of that that it’s “not a breeze”. Kimpost it’s really about manners imo. Plenty of other non-right-wing posters take issue but do it in a different manner. Touchy subjects I think everyone is fine with manners being out the window – but when it’s EVERY post! It gets absurd.

    I don’t think it’s absurd either to suggest Obama is a “socialist”. My opinion is he is a “socialist” in education, but when push comes to shove he’s a self-interested egomaniac who yearns for power. The Labour party of the UK, Tony Blair’s party that is, has plenty of socialists on the back bench. It’s not exactly odd. The universities in both the US and UK are filled with many teachers devoted to brainwashing their pupils into being a socialist. It’s not surprise that Obama has socialist tendencies.

    This reminds me of a topic where I actually did sit down and look for links for CM. I tried to explain him that ideological basis of modern (60s) liberalism IS based in Marxism and that which came after – and is actively orientated towards destroying the nuclear family, destroying any “Traditional” culture, all with marxist underpinnings. I sent him a detailed account of Engels and Marx and how even they desired to destroy the family (Engles more so, don’t be too hard on Marx). The marxists and socialist thinkers who came after, who dictate the academic framework of so many of our universities, are even more extreme (again, the Conservatives are just so inept when it comes to realising this, despite these liberals/leftists writing down what they intend to do in published works). But I thought a nice clear demonstration of the “father” of the left would be apt for CM. He just didn’t care! He probably did take it personal as you say. But I, and I doubt most people here, actually think all liberals are the same. I’m sure there are plenty of conservative-democrats, for example.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  48. Kimpost says:

    If we were to call Obama a socialist, then every right wing and centrist politicians in Europe are too. And what would be the point of that? To show the ignorant people what their leaders really are? Never mind that they are all believers in democratic principles, free markets, individual freedom and capitalism…

    You know that the UK Labour Party isn’t socialist, even if there are some cooks in the back benches. Most of whom seem more interested in the label (probably because of 60′s nostalgia) than of imposing actual socialism. The old Marxist professors at universities (how many are there, really?) seem to have a much smaller influence than what people (you?) are suggesting. Frankly, if we didn’t turn into socialists in the 60′s we won’t now. Marx and Engels died in Western Europe in the late 60′s/early 70′s. They died globally 1989, well virtually anyway.

    Socialism/Communism aren’t the ideologies to fight any more. The biggest threat, in my opinion, is fear and what that might lead to in form of safety measures “for the good of the people”. Those safety measures come from both sides of the isle. Ask Cameron if he wants to remove the CCTV cameras of Britain. He’s not a socialist is he?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  49. Poosh says:

    I’m not going to get into this, but merely point out “marxism” has changed over the past 100 years. There are a long list of names of philosophers/sociologists who took up Marxism, but repackaged/changed it. And continue to do so today. Many of them may reject communism and simply believe socialism is sufficient. Even Lenin did not follow Marx to the letter, he “changed” it. On top of that a socialist, generally, believes in democracy.

    And merely because one cannot enact socialism, does not make him not a socialist. During the election several old interviews with Obama surfaced before being forgotten. Perhaps posted on this blog as well. They raised a great many eyebrows, clearly showing Obama was a socialist at least at that period in time. The only reason I don’t believe he’s a socialist is because he is clearly obsessed with personal power and domination. Nonetheless, it is foolish to say Obama is not a socialist (or X or Y) merely because he is not heavily pushing socialism – that would be impossible and suicidal.

    On top of that there’s being a socialist and being socialistic. And then it’s a case of degree.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  50. balthazar says:

    Kim, its a memo from the ATF to its field agents to let guns walk SO THEY COULD GET MORE GUN CONTROL.

    How is that NOT a conspiracy?

    I’ll restate, ATF told the dealers to release the guns, the ATF then tries to use those purchases to restrict gun sales. WTF is so difficult to understand.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/gunwalking-for-stricter-gun-regulation-not-a-conspiracy-theory

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. CM says:

    Of course you can be polite and ask – and they would oblige you, but you are never polite or well-mannered. You just troll everything. There’s a difference between being challenging and asking if people are open to a debate, and just being rude.

    Kimpost it’s really about manners imo. Plenty of other non-right-wing posters take issue but do it in a different manner. Touchy subjects I think everyone is fine with manners being out the window –

    Sorry but that’s just complete and utter nonsense. I’m polite until someone gets personal with me. My manners are no worse than anyone else, and better than most. How I ask appears to have no bearing on whether someone is willing to back up what they claim.

    If you disagree, please cite some examples of what you’re talking about.

    but when it’s EVERY post! It gets absurd.

    That’s just utterly ridiculous.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  52. Seattle Outcast says:

    There’s a marked difference between “polite” and “I’m here to be douchebag to all you hicks”, which is pretty much how I see your participation here. You post some far-left liberal tripe in response to, well, pretty much anything Alex posts. Numerous people point out that your links are either garbage, cherry picked, not relevant, or mostly meaningless, and you continue on as if the points made didn’t happen, call on everyone to provide links to back up their position, and then get pissed off because nobody appears to want to discuss things with you.

    Newsflash for you – that discussion isn’t going to happen because 1) you’ve been written off as a crank, 2) your position has generally already been viewed, discussed and discarded before anybody ever came to this blog, 3) your “style” smacks of you being a plant sent here to educate all of us poor, misinformed, barely educated morons that live in flyover country, 4) we have better shit to do that hunt down articles and data we read months/years ago just to please you.

    Kimpost is right, you are a “mainstream liberal”, which in the USA puts you to the left of about 80% of the populace that considers itself primarily to be center-conservative with some liberal leanings on certain subjects. You fit right in with people from Boston, Detroit, NYC, LA, or San Francisco – which are generally despised, or at least distrusted, by the rest of the country.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  53. CM says:

    There’s a marked difference between “polite” and “I’m here to be douchebag to all you hicks”, which is pretty much how I see your participation here.

    When I ask for evidence (which is what Poosh is talking about) I most often just say “Evidence?” There is no inference of anything in that.
    I was easily able to have a considerable number of long discussions at MW Forums with conservatives/libertarians without all this garbage that seems to be compulsory here.

    You post some far-left liberal tripe in response to, well, pretty much anything Alex posts.

    Numerous people point out that your links are either garbage, cherry picked, not relevant, or mostly meaningless, and you continue on as if the points made didn’t happen,

    Nonsense. Give me some examples please.
    (Why can nobody ever give any examples?)

    Newsflash for you – that discussion isn’t going to happen because 1) you’ve been written off as a crank,

    That says more about those that do that than it does about me. What crank positions have I put forward? I’m more often than not questioning the crank positions/narratives, which seem to be based on a flawed premise. Apparently it’s not ok to examine the narrative/premise though, it must just be accepted.

    2) your position has generally already been viewed, discussed and discarded before anybody ever came to this blog, 3) your “style” smacks of you being a plant sent here to educate all of us poor, misinformed, barely educated morons that live in flyover country, 4) we have better shit to do that hunt down articles and data we read months/years ago just to please you.

    You’re effectively describing an echo-chamber. In which case people should do away with the pretense that this anything other than a place for like-minded people to agree with each other, with no other perspective being tolerated, and examining and discussing detail actively discouraged and frowned upon. Why bother pretending otherwise?
    I’d be interested to know where you (and others) actually go to test your opinions and ideas.

    Kimpost is right, you are a “mainstream liberal”, which in the USA puts you to the left of about 80% of the populace that considers itself primarily to be center-conservative with some liberal leanings on certain subjects. You fit right in with people from Boston, Detroit, NYC, LA, or San Francisco – which are generally despised, or at least distrusted, by the rest of the country.

    I would have thought mainstream liberals would make up most of the middle ground within the Democratic Party. I’ve not heard that 80% of the US population would be centre-conservative before. That sounds awfully high considering the middle ground of the Dem Party must be reasonably large (perhaps 20% by itself), and obviously there are many to the left of that. Anyway I’ll do some research.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  54. ilovecress says:

    How apt that this thread is called ‘recess time’.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  55. Kimpost says:

    Kim, its a memo from the ATF to its field agents to let guns walk SO THEY COULD GET MORE GUN CONTROL.

    So the following is established. Assuming these memos are factual, and it seems like it.

    Exclusive documents obtained by Gun Rights Examiner show the dealer cooperated with ATF by selling guns to straw purchasers, and that bureau management later asserted these guns were being traced to crimes.

    Unfortunately it doesn’t mean much. I have no problems whatsoever believing that the ATF is so mismanaged that some people in the organisation sets up gangsta type gun sales with zero(!) tracking, while others at the ATF collects stats from gun sales looking for increases in crime – possibly looking for reasons for stricter gun control. This without one knowing about the other. That’s just how fucked up I think the machine is.

    I also find that much more likely, than the outlined White House conspiracy. Why? Well, because I don’t think that Holder and Obama are James Bond type of villains. Incompetency is the key here. Holder probably knew dick about it, even after being “briefed”. Just like Issa was “briefed” but still knew nothing. They were poorly briefed probably by people who themselves knew dick. Multiple layers of incompetence is likely the key here. The ATF probably needs to be rebuilt, or scrapped.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/gunwalking-for-stricter-gun-regulation-not-a-conspiracy-theory

    Thanks for the link.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  56. Xetrov says:

    Unfortunately it doesn’t mean much. I have no problems whatsoever believing that the ATF is so mismanaged that some people in the organisation sets up gangsta type gun sales with zero(!) tracking, while others at the ATF collects stats from gun sales looking for increases in crime – possibly looking for reasons for stricter gun control. This without one knowing about the other.

    I really don’t buy that argument considering…

    Today, though, let’s look at something else Mr. Codrea tells us about the Indiana allegations–that the same gun dealer who was pressured by the BATFE to proceed with suspicious (and sometimes flat-out illegal) sales was then ordered–by the very same agency that pushed for those sales–to submit far more information than is generally required, about all of his gun sales, because of the large number of “crime guns” he had sold, and the short “time to crime.” It was only when the dealer’s attorney pointed out that many of the guns that had flagged the BATFE’s suspicions were ones they’d urged him to sell, that they dropped their demand. That roughly parallels the experience of Carter’s Country (the gun dealer in Houston), which was under investigation for possible criminal activity, until the dealer’s attorney made noises about the fact that that very same activity has been at the BATFE’s behest.

    If the area chief of the ATF was ordering these illegal gun purchases, and then the same store then came up for an intense investigation specifically for those illegal purchases, somebody at the agency knew both sides. That the same formula appears to have happened at multiple gun stores across the country only further backs up that assertion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  57. balthazar says:

    CM, we’ve gone over this before on MW.

    Liberal are about 20% of the us pop. Its been verified in NUMEROUS polls.

    Gallup for 1

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

    This is a prime example of the uselessness of giving you links though, weve done this dance before, you just refuse to actually believe it. Guess what, YOU ARE A SEVERELY LEFT LIBERAL IN THE MINDS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE US POPULACE. You are probably more left then about 95% of the people in the US. YOU think you are a moderate, maybe in your country, you are, in the US you are verging on a crackpot.

    You constantly come across as a “let me educate the dumb hicks” type of liberal. That is why you get slapped down, ignored, ridiculed, accused of chicken-fucking all the time.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  58. CM says:

    This is a prime example of the uselessness of giving you links though, weve done this dance before, you just refuse to actually believe it.

    See that’s deliberately setting up a situation where I am required to accept whatever your link says, and if I dare comment on it, I’m simply “refusing to believe it”. That’s intellectually bankrupt.

    E.g.

    1. The Gallup Poll is all about how people describe themselves. I would describe myself as a moderate, because my views on everything are moderate. I cannot think of a single issue where I don’t hold moderate views. But if you think I’m a liberal, then how much larger would that ‘liberal’ group be if all those others who consider themselves moderates should instead (by your measure)be placed in the ‘liberal’ camp?

    2. According to that poll 37% of Democrats consider themselves to be moderate. Which supports my contention that:

    That sounds awfully high considering the middle ground of the Dem Party must be reasonably large (perhaps 20% by itself), and obviously there are many to the left of that.

    If about just under half the voting public votes Democrat, then my 20% is only a few percentage points too high. But then there is a slightly larger chunk to the left of that.

    3. What happened to the ‘very conservative’ and ‘very liberal’ responses? They were available options in the first question but aren’t on the graph. Possibly they make up the remaining 3%.

    Now it’s your turn to ignore all that and just blindly say that “your a moron”.

    YOU ARE A SEVERELY LEFT LIBERAL IN THE MINDS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE US POPULACE.

    I don’t think that’s even remotely true.

    You are probably more left then about 95% of the people in the US.

    Again, I think that’s highly unlikely.

    YOU think you are a moderate, maybe in your country, you are, in the US you are verging on a crackpot.

    Give me a quick list (say 5) of my opinions that “verge on crackpot”.

    You constantly come across as a “let me educate the dumb hicks” type of liberal. That is why you get slapped down, ignored, ridiculed, accused of chicken-fucking all the time.

    Only by certain posters, and never in any sort of intelligent way, and they are pretty clearly the ones with the issues. Any discussion that goes beyond a narrow spectrum of reasoning and understanding is considered to be heresy. That’s not normal.

    I have no problem being ignored (e.g. I keep asking for examples to support accusations on a whole range of topics, including this one, and yet the examples invariably fail to appear). I don’t recall feeling like I’ve been “slapped down” or “ridiculed”. Just showering someone with personal abuse (that isn’t even clever) doesn’t even remotely meet those definitions. As Kimpost said, those who get off on that shit are too lazy. Or more likely they’re not actually able to do anything else. But that’s not because of their political leanings, or proximity to rural environments. It’s because they’re dumb and rude.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  59. CM says:

    I’ve found the 2011 version of the poll, and it answers my third question/query. They lump in the ‘very conservative’ responses with ‘conservative’. Likewise with liberals. The remaining 3% (in the 2010 poll) would have been ‘no opinion’.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  60. balthazar says:

    Here you go CM, off the top of my head. Here are a few of your views that are left of the majority of americans.

    1: gun control
    2: Death penalty
    3: Socialized Healthcare
    4: How Entitlements should be done.

    Just a few, Im sure if i took more than 2 min to think about it I would come up with more.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  61. CM says:

    Being to the left of at least 50% of Americans is an entirely different threshold to what we are talking about. Remember, you’re suggesting that I’m so darned liberal that I’m verging on a crackpot.

    1. LOL, I’m not a supporter of gun control, so WTF are you talking about with your first example? If you don’t believe me, go searching and quote something. You probably couldn’t have picked a worse example if you spent a week doing so.

    2. I’m in a group of 35%. Hardly an extreme crackpot position. Especially as the trend is that group increasing rather than decreasing.

    3. I’d prefer a mixed system to a government run no-choice system like the NHS. I doubt that’s a minority opinion in the US. This (see first graph and following table) would suggest that I’m in the majority (let alone at an extreme end). I don’t have a fixed opinion on the Obamacare version of healthcare – I don’t have enough specific knowledge to make an overall judgement.

    4. What do you base this on? I mean, on what comments of mine, and what polling that you’ve seen?
    I’m in the majority based on this:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html

    I do give you credit for providing examples, even if they don’t support your case). That’s progress. ;-)

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  62. drunkkus says:

    Unfortunately it doesn’t mean much. I have no problems whatsoever believing that the ATF is so mismanaged that some people in the organisation sets up gangsta type gun sales with zero(!) tracking, while others at the ATF collects stats from gun sales looking for increases in crime – possibly looking for reasons for stricter gun control. This without one knowing about the other. That’s just how fucked up I think the machine is.

    I also find that much more likely, than the outlined White House conspiracy. Why? Well, because I don’t think that Holder and Obama are James Bond type of villains. Incompetency is the key here. Holder probably knew dick about it, even after being “briefed”. Just like Issa was “briefed” but still knew nothing. They were poorly briefed probably by people who themselves knew dick. Multiple layers of incompetence is likely the key here. The ATF probably needs to be rebuilt, or scrapped.

    You certainly haven’t hidden the fact that you are a believer in socialized healthcare. I’m curious if this fucked up machine and the multiple layers of incompetence are really who you would want deciding where/how your healthcare happens or wielding substantial control over your life in other ways through other agencies/laws/regulations? Does this incompetency only exist at the ATF and just happen to be absent in other areas like the EPA or DHS, or is there a flaw in logic here? In our system in the US, if it’s not the same dipshit trifecta of Obama, Holder, and Issa, it will just be another group of dipshits at another agency or another fucked up machine altogether.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  63. Kimpost says:

    You certainly haven’t hidden the fact that you are a believer in socialized healthcare. I’m curious if this fucked up machine and the multiple layers of incompetence are really who you would want deciding where/how your healthcare happens or wielding substantial control over your life in other ways through other agencies/laws/regulations?

    I believe in universal healthcare, not necessarily a socialized one. But I do believe that full access should be treated as a human right, which means that others sometimes would have to pick up other peoples bills, yes.

    I’m no fan of (big) government, but some things are necessary. As a Swede I include healthcare into the mix of necessities that you guys have already deemed the same (education, national defence, police, fire departments, etc.). I don’t believe that government ultimately has to be incompetent, or even wasteful. We should always strive for transparency and accountability, so that we the people can make sure that waste is minimal.

    I’ve mostly followed Fast & Furious and Gunwalker through LSM (print/web/broadcast) and Fox News. Doing that has led to pretty damning information about the ATF going back decades (my general impression). I’m not sure the organisation is salvageable. Perhaps it is, but if it isn’t, why not just scrap it? I’m sure other agencies could handle its duties. On the other hand the FBI has been involved in Gunwalker operations too. Perhaps this isn’t just an ATF problem? Investigate, debate and adjust, I guess…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  64. balthazar says:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/101863/sixtynine-percent-americans-support-death-penalty.aspx

    Id have to go thru the MW archives for stuff about Gun Control, but I remember discussion in which you were readily against private ownership of handguns in the US.

    Maybe its 35% in kiwi land, in the us its under 30%, and consistently under 30%

    The US ALREADY HAD A MIXED SYSTEM. Yet you are still a huge supported of a law that will lead to government run HC in the US, a country its readily apparent you know a whole fuck less about than you think, and that you DONT FUCKING LIVE IN. Obamacare has already lead to some of the largest increases in the cost of health insurance on a year by year basis.

    Entitlement are not only SS and MC2, it includes welfare, food stamps, and unemployment as it exits right now, hell i would lump education spending in that as well, since the majority of education spending is for paying teacher salaries. The FED needs to get out of shit like food stamps, welfare etc, and leave it to the individual states.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. richtaylor365 says:

    Kim, I have a few questions concerning the cradle to grave entitlement system as practiced by your country ( and correct me if I’m wrong in any of this).

    Does Sweden have a social security system, a system whereby workers deduct monies from their monthly salary to pay in to a pot or fund to pay for their retirement? And unlike here in America, is it enough to pay for a comfortable retirement and stay solvent? Is their such thing as a “pension” equivalent in Sweden and who gets one? Do Swedes supplement their retirement planning with a 401K or is that even necessary?

    Probably the biggest reason for my aversions to out of control (subjective on my part, I admit) entitlement spending is that the way it’s practiced here, we run up hugh deficits to pay for it. Unlike most here (I could be wrong) I am not against entitlements on it’s face and feel that a civilized society needs (is obligated) to take care of it’s sick, infirm, poor, and those not able to take care of themselves and I will gladly pay taxes to provide this service. But I would like that service provided in the most efficient cost effective manner and safeguards in place ( probably impossible) so that the monies go to those in need, not those too lazy to work.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Kimpost says:

    Sweden has reformed its social security system. From a system that looked a lot like yours do today with guaranteed benefits, to a system based on how much you have actually paid in, and how much your investment has paid off. It was a bi-partisan agreement implemented in 1994 and 1998. Only one party in parliament was against it (The Left, a 5% party). It’s now solvent regardless what happens. If the markets suck, the retirement will suck. And the other way around.

    I’m not trying to paint a picture of a rose garden. Sweden has problems with waste too. And we certainly have government programs I would like to see terminated. In regards to your (the general American) relation to government, we had a short discussion about government corruption in another thread. Scandinavian countries generally rank high on lists over countries with low levels of corruption . I suspect that the reason is only partially cultural, we are hardly better people after all. It’s probably got much more to do with size. Sweden is a small country (population wise) where people know each other. It makes corruption a bit more difficult.

    I think that the general rule should be to keep democracy as close to the affected as possible. I prefer that in Sweden too. After all we know more about our home town and about our needs, than they do in Stockholm. And you should here what people in the north of Sweden thinks about Stockholm and their regulations. :)

    When I discuss what society should or should not do, I generally don’t draw a distinction between levels of government. I’ve found that it sometimes confuses people here. Take universal healthcare for instance. If you Americans end up wanting it in some form, I’m not saying that it should be handled by the Feds. The states would probably do a better job, both in quality and cost. What I, as an outsider, do like about “Obama care” is that the issue of something I regard as a human right, is on the table. How you actually end up implementing it, if you do, is another matter.

    Much like you I’m no fan of deficit spending (believe it or not). I accept some during a recession, but generally speaking I believe that countries should run a small surplus. That surplus should be used for paying for infrastructural spending during bad times. The 2008 crisis was so out of the ordinary though, in its magnitude, so I supported the TARP.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. richtaylor365 says:

    Given that anyone, legal/illegal, rich/poor, insured/uninsured can walk into any emergency room at any hospital and get treated, we have universal healthcare now and always have.

    I got a good tennis buddy who is an ER physician who constantly regales us with stories and anecdotal evidence of the waste and expense incurred thru getting medical services in this manner.

    What I, as an outsider, do like about “Obama care” is that the issue of something I regard as a human right, is on the table. How you actually end up implementing it, if you do, is another matter.

    The fact that all people get sick, injured, grow old and need medical services require some form of universal healthcare, no getting around that, but what soured folks on Obamacare was:

    1)the manner in which it was rammed thru at the dead of night without them knowing what they were actually signing
    2)All the lies about the costs incurred
    3)all the waivers that were issued, insinuating that it wasn’t so great or effective afterall
    4)the jobs it will cost given that companies either can’t afford it or will circumvent it through hiring
    5)the layers of bureaucratic oversight, the new laws, the new boards/committees, and all the red tape will only grow government further and make it more cost inefficient.

    I can see the appeal for paying extra to take the worry out of medial emergencies and retirement, but as you said, it is much easier on a smaller scale with a smaller country, and it is pay as you go with no deficits being created in running it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  68. CM says:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/101863/sixtynine-percent-americans-support-death-penalty.aspx

    Maybe its 35% in kiwi land, in the us its under 30%, and consistently under 30%

    Apologies I forgot to add the link to the 35%. It’s the 2011 version of the Gallup poll (yours is from 2007). Support for the death penalty has fallen to a 39 year low. The trend started in about 1995. So I hardly hold a position verging on crackpot on this issue, even if you’re going to measure that by where I sit in terms of Americans.
    I have absolutely no idea what the support for the death penalty would be here. It never comes up as an issue. Maybe 5%. Possibly less. We would rather set up perilous quests such as seeking rings from firey mountaintops.

    Id have to go thru the MW archives for stuff about Gun Control, but I remember discussion in which you were readily against private ownership of handguns in the US.

    I would be extremely surprised. Although I’ve certainly moved to the right on the issue (as I have with immigration) so perhaps it was something back in the middle of last decade.

    The US ALREADY HAD A MIXED SYSTEM. Yet you are still a huge supported of a law that will lead to government run HC in the US, a country its readily apparent you know a whole fuck less about than you think, and that you DONT FUCKING LIVE IN. Obamacare has already lead to some of the largest increases in the cost of health insurance on a year by year basis.

    I’m a huge supporter of Obamacare??! Where do you get this stuff from?
    It’s apparent that you know a whole fuck less about my opinions than you think.

    Entitlement are not only SS and MC2, it includes welfare, food stamps, and unemployment as it exits right now, hell i would lump education spending in that as well, since the majority of education spending is for paying teacher salaries. The FED needs to get out of shit like food stamps, welfare etc, and leave it to the individual states.

    I favour of local democracy over mandates from far away (like Kimpost does as well).
    Again, what beliefs of mine in relation to entitlements are verging on crackpot?

    None of these examples (nor your graph about where people think they sit) support your constantly-shifting hypothesis about my beliefs.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  69. balthazar says:

    Well CM, here’s a couple examples on the Gun control front.

    http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/2709/P25/#58397

    Your whole line of discussion in this thread leads one to belive you dont want anyone other than the gov to have guns as well.

    http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/2695/P0/

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  70. AlexInCT says:

    Sweden has reformed its social security system. From a system that looked a lot like yours do today with guaranteed benefits, to a system based on how much you have actually paid in, and how much your investment has paid off. It was a bi-partisan agreement implemented in 1994 and 1998. Only one party in parliament was against it (The Left, a 5% party). It’s now solvent regardless what happens. If the markets suck, the retirement will suck. And the other way around.

    Damn, even the Swedes get that this kind of social net should be based on merit -how much you pay in because you work – and that there are no guarantees regardless of precautions taken.

    BTW, Kimpost, I find it funny that you say the only party/people that opposed this was the Left. This was the hard core communist party right? As far as I can tell even the most right wing parties out there in Europe are left leaning to people that do not consider socialism and acceptance of socialism to be the norm or what defines a moderate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  71. Kimpost says:

    BTW, Kimpost, I find it funny that you say the only party/people that opposed this was the Left. This was the hard core communist party right? As far as I can tell even the most right wing parties out there in Europe are left leaning to people that do not consider socialism and acceptance of socialism to be the norm or what defines a moderate.

    Well kind of. We don’t have a communist party in parliament, since the actual communists are too small to get representation (parties need to pass 4%, to avoid a too much fragmentation). The reason I still say kind of, is because the Left Party once were a communist party. Like most of those transitions the party first moved away from communism as an ideology (1967), then after a couple of decades more, they also changed the name (1990).

    Few people in Europe accepts socialism as a norm. We are very pro free markets, freedom and capitalistic. Mixed markets can’t be socialism. If it were, you’d be socialists too. We are simply disagreeing on the mix, not in the mix itself. National Defence = We agree. Universal Healthcare = We disagree.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.