Gee, I guess a three month lull has everyone out of shape!

OK, PEOPLE, TEN LAPS AROUND THE SIFT!

I'd laugh so hard if she turns out to be some sort of brilliant Uber-Debater and completely plasters Biden. All of the stupid remarks and uh uhmm answers were a ploy to lull the Obama camp into complacency.

I can control gravity!

This is definitely a temporary thing. Just two months ago, I thought people had finally reached a saturation level with the election, but it turned out it was just a lull in people's interest between the end of the primaries in June, and the conventions in August.

The minute the conventions started, politics was hot here, and it's stayed hot ever since. I suspect it will stay hot until Nov 4th, and then drop off after that.

Personally, I'm likely to stay interested, and keep posting political videos, though not nearly at the rate I've been going at. I suspect the Top 15 will pretty quickly return to a more diverse composition a week or two after the election, with flare ups possible if Bush invades Iran in December, or the global economy collapses, or aliens land in the Rose Garden.

^you can check the date on the tires before you buy them. if you think older tires are worth less, why don't you haggle the price? if they don't have any new tires, or won't give you a reduced price, why not go to one of many other tire shops with your money?

people get lulled into a false sense of security because they think the "government will protect them" so they feel no need for personal responsibility. its a cultural disease. case in point: people who walk through crosswalks without looking both ways and get killed by cars.

Forget all these loser politicians! You and I should start our own country! CommonSenseville.
I'll be the King, you can be the Queen.


You're quick to point the finger at Phil Gramm. He's not without fault, but neither are many of the Democrats (including Papa Clinton).

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Take that with a grain of salt. I'm simply pointing out that this hasn't been a one-sided mistake. I agree with the "bit of fine tuning" that you talk about, but Clinton practically took away the ability of Fannie and Freddie to turn down "bad loans." It's not like he twisted their arm, but still.

I used to work as a loan officer in CA. Did so for 4 years starting in 2000 (right after the Clinton years). Even I saw it coming. I could fit almost anybody with a job a mortgage program that would get approved (and purchased on the secondary market). The other LO's and the Branch Managers would talk about how awesome Bill Clinton was for forcing the secondary market to buy riskier loans. We were all reaping the benefits (little did we know...). I'm no economist, but like I said, I started to realize that it wasn't headed in the right direction back in 2004.

Where were the democrats then?

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/The-OLD-Bush-Plan-for-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac-Oversight

There is a reason that Congress has a 9% approval rating and it's not only the Republican's fault. The Dems have had the majority since the last election, remember?


I do want to let you know that I think you're mostly right about what the next step should be.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I think on this count, you're in agreement with me, and the Democratic party.

However, I think we're looking at more than a lull right now. The Democrats would prefer our actions be focused on putting money into the bottom of the economy, instead of the top, but I think that something needed to be done to bail out Fannie and Freddie at this point. I just don't think preserving the executives' bonus compensation packages should have been part of the deal.

I'd rather Phil Gramm and the Republicans hadn't deregulated the finance markets in the first place -- that's what opened the door for this kind of unchecked expansion into an area where no one was being honest about the risks.

Now those risks everyone denied or concealed are turning out to be real, and they're turning to the taxpayers to keep them solvent.

I think a modern-day leftie like me would say that so long as we had unemployment insurance for everyone, universal healthcare, and fair bankruptcy laws, we don't need to bail any company out -- let the downturn happen, and rely on the social safety net to keep people from starving or dying.

I also think that once it becomes clear what the root cause of the market failure was, we should add some regulation (as little as possible) to reduce the likelihood of a similar catastrophe from happening in the future.

I think the biggest misconception people have of Democrats is that they think we don't believe in the benefits of a free market -- we absolutely do -- we just think it needs a bit of fine tuning from time to time to keep it healthy.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.

I think on this count, you're in agreement with me, and the Democratic party.

However, I think we're looking at more than a lull right now. The Democrats would prefer our actions be focused on putting money into the bottom of the economy, instead of the top, but I think that something needed to be done to bail out Fannie and Freddie at this point. I just don't think preserving the executives' bonus compensation packages should have been part of the deal.

I'd rather Phil Gramm and the Republicans hadn't deregulated the finance markets in the first place -- that's what opened the door for this kind of unchecked expansion into an area where no one was being honest about the risks.

Now those risks everyone denied or concealed are turning out to be real, and they're turning to the taxpayers to keep them solvent.

I think a modern-day leftie like me would say that so long as we had unemployment insurance for everyone, universal healthcare, and fair bankruptcy laws, we don't need to bail any company out -- let the downturn happen, and rely on the social safety net to keep people from starving or dying.

I also think that once it becomes clear what the root cause of the market failure was, we should add some regulation (as little as possible) to reduce the likelihood of a similar catastrophe from happening in the future.

I think the biggest misconception people have of Democrats is that they think we don't believe in the benefits of a free market -- we absolutely do -- we just think it needs a bit of fine tuning from time to time to keep it healthy.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.

I don't want taxes to be LOWERED for the guy making 600,000 dollars, I want it to stay the same. Barack wants to balance the cuts to the lower classes by raising them for the rich. I think they should cut lower income tax rates and leave the higher tax brackets the same.

I'm just splitting hairs here.

I HATE the fact that the FED is making us pay for the mistakes of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I didn't default on my loan. More importantly, I didn't buy loans that were high risk. This is a terrible solution. All they are doing is sticking a band-aid on it so that the next president will have to deal with it.

I would say that I have a conservative view on the economy, except that every republican President for the past 20 years has broken his campaign promises when it comes to the economy. I'm torn between voting for somebody based on what they say they're going to do, and what the party has traditionally done once in office. If the republicans would keep their economic promises, I'd be 100% behind them. I just don't know what to believe anymore. I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Sounds like we're essentially in agreement about drilling -- I think we'll need to do it eventually, but I think the longer we put it off, the better off we are, not only environmentally, but also with regard to what kind of returns our country can get for it.

About taxes, I'm not really worried about the guy making $600,000, but only winding up with $300,000 after taxes.

I'm very worried about people with less than $50,000, and moderately worried about people with less than $100,000.

Can you really justify asking more from people making $45,000/yr, in order to let the $600,000 income guy keep another $100,000 in taxes?

Republicans & supply siders always say "well, people with huge money hire people with their excess money"...well, so does the government, and while there's more than a little corruption, what's called corruption in government is often called "rewarding success" in the corporate world.

Past a certain point, people are just using their wealth for investments, and while there's an argument to be made about those investments helping the economy, the economy also just got saved by a government take over of Fannie & Freddie that puts the failures of these supposedly infallible investors on the backs of taxpayers.

I didn't benefit from the boom (I don't have real estate investments), why should I bear more of the burden from the bust?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You're absolutely right to criticize those who promise lower gas prices in exchange for leasing federal land to oil companies. It's a lie.



I don't agree with that large of an increase in tax on individuals earning more than $600,000. Their taxes would increase by more than $100,000 up to $700,000. That's a potential 19-24% increase from what is already the highest tax bracket. He's only proposing an additional cut, at the most, of $75 per month less than what McCain's tax plan is (that's only for one bracket). Whose plan is more fair in my opinion?

I believe that people earning below $30,000 should only have to pay a minimal tax, but I don't believe that others should have to pay 40-50% tax, regardless of how much they earn. It's just not right.

>> ^ChosenOne:
Sooo.. if the death star were to blow up a planet, from the planets view would the death star look like a big boobie?


It aims to lull the inhabitants into inaction through subliminal messages of comfort and happiness.

The thing with preemption is, how far do you preempt things? Some say that Russia is rebuilding itself right now and engaging in new cold war, the same is said of China. Could preemption of either of this nations benefit the US? Especially with China the case could be built as it's a communist nation...

I think culturally the Japanese people were different because of the acts of the Emperor of Japan to lull the nation into accepting occupational forces. I don't think the same would have happened with a preempted attack.

The whole attack on Pearl Harbor was not a success entirely, while alot of ships were destroyed the aircraft carriers were not, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto the mastermind of Pearl Harbor, is believed to have said "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve".

Congrats on the gold-100; you're like the zifnab of sifting!

Here's a song I wrote some time ago, which is sort of appropriate and shameless self promotion. (Poetry ftw, is what I hear.)

Snowman's Dream
Am Dm C E
It's cold outside in this wintertime
I have the lights within my sight
Dm C G Am
I hear a newborn baby cry
Dm Am E Am
And with the sound I close my eyes

The chill has gone from off my bones
I finally feel that I am home
My mother and my father is here
They're spreading feelings and good cheer

Am-A Dm C G Am (B-part)
My love is here and burns so near
Dm Am E Am
And gone is fright and all of my fears

I see the snowman I've become
I sense the wintertime is goin'
Your love is all I ask of you
And to your light I will be true

Am-A Dm C G Am (B-part)
I'll take away your fear and fright
And lull you into the dream of night
Compell you to stay here with me
And see all of the things I see

-- Solo-something (verse-chords) --

You come from overhead the clouds
And take away all of my doubts
You lull me into a brightened daze
Your love and warmth is your embrace

(B-part)
Your light has melted all my dreams
I feel your love surrounding me
You're near and dear and in my sight
Our ending word is a wet, whispered goodbye

"Hell, they do it for their local sports teams. How exactly is that a negative thing?"

It helped to turn Rome into shit.....
The point precisely-groomed to react as a herd, very easily manipulated. Uhohzombies you wear it like a badge of honor....and you can't form your OWN OPINIONS, because you have either not been given all the data with which to do so, or you do not have the process with which to accomplish such a task....NOR DO MOST OF US-

and what does, "Not as good as they used to be" mean, in the context of Obama? Taking quotes out of context is part of the same spin-oriented poo poo JD is pointing out here.....
That statement has no substance, dude-You do have 5 comment up-votes from the peanut gallery of the emotionally charged, though.....can tell you grew up around a houseful of, "Opinionated" people....

Not to downplay the hope for a brighter tomorrow at the heart of your support for a beltway outsider, but at this point in the game my friend, hope against hope is perhaps one of the reasons why the Nation is lulled into idiocy regarding our government, electoral process, etc.....

I used to do this all the time when I was in the field and we were in a lull between fire missions. - That is, if I had foam earplugs. Fingers work way better because it's an easy off/on and they muffle sound MUCH better than an earplug could ever hope for.

but to what are they ignorant exactly?

It is perhaps more fitting to ask what they are NOT ignorant about.. They are even ignorant about the bible, in many ways, which is pretty disturbing since it seems to be their only field of interest.

Nevertheless, to answer you question: The rest of the world, literally, and philosophically.

Also, the ignorance tag was not just directed at these peoples own ignorance, but their fervent efforts to spread ignorance to the rest of the world, by means of what they think is enlightenment, namely to lull people into some frantic, hypnotic Jesus-fantasy.

I watch Russian television on regular basis and keep informed via their press, over the last few years you saw a systematic propaganda movement to convince the Russian population of the same things that are hit within this documentary, that service in Russia is to "Land, Church and Tsar" or specifically the former KGB cronies who now occupy all government posts headed by Putin within the Kremlin. The stability most people talk about is not stability, its fear and respect to the old ways of Russian control much the same way that has been ingrained in the population over 100 years of centralized soviet communist and previous to that Tsar rule.

There is no tradition of peaceful power passage within the Russian government, because for Russians the modus operandi has been either revolt or submission. But its very simplistic to assume that it's what Russian want or understand much in the same way it was simplistic for the Neo-cons to assume that Arabs only understand brute force.

They have not been informed or given the opportunity to see that there are other choices beyond Putin or even Yeltsin, who after a disastrous first term was elected for a second term. The press apparatus was ineffective in informing the citizens that there was another choice, and now has been wholly seized by the state, thus you see the development of anti-western rhetoric that even Legacy employs, that Kasparov and other democratic parties are 'super-western'. It's merely a revival of the age old Soviet stance of 'enemies aboard', 'western intervention' and so on, but merely is a guise for assumption of totalitarian power, much in the same way 'war on terror' and fear mongering tactics were used by the White house to justify intervention into Iraq and the dismantling of key civil liberties.

When Yeltsin assumed power it was recommended to him that he disband the KGB and former secret service apparatus, but he did not take these steps, and over the years the KGB reformed as the FSB encroached on more positions of power and control within the government. Year on year the number of high positions held by former members of the KGB/FSB increased, far in excess of even the times of Gorbachev and the USSR.

Electroal laws have been changed to create a perpetual one party state under "United Russia" - from Putin machine squeezes opponents

* Increasing the minimum percentage of votes required for a party to enter parliament from 5% to 7% and banning parties from forming coalitions in order to break through the higher threshold

* Increasing the minimum number of members a party must have in order to be officially registered by the authorities, from 10,000 to 50,000

* Banning independent candidates from running for parliament.

Russians know this and voice their views, the economic success that so many people tout as being Putins are not his really, it was merely the time when benefits of centralized market systems moving into free market reforms completed laid in by Yeltsin, and of course the benefit of high oil prices and gas prices. All development has been concentrated in Moscow, travel to the rural areas and you instantly start to wonder what had changed from 1991 other then the abundance of mobile phones.

History shows that for totalitarian rulers to come into power require the convergence of time and opportunity, and this is Putin's time, over the last 6 years he has successfully dismantled any way of opposing him, and centralized power under himself, the election that is taking place is already called he will become prime minister, the population lulled while the engine of economy purrs well seemingly, but once the oil boom stops, food prices locks are removed and the population will start to revolt against their leader, there is no doubt in my mind that Putin will use whatever means necessary to suppress the population citing western intervention, orange revolution and using the secret police that even now are breaking up opposition demonstrations.

jwray, with that impeccable line of reasoning, will you have the shit sandwich, or the shit foie gras, in aspic??

This pep-rally bullshit, is no way to make a decision for the next exec. The way to do it, is to sit back, relax, and let the next in-bed, appointee, lull you into a sense of trust and satisfaction, in the U.S. political system.

The next player, will be in office, because they have been groomed for it....and placed there

the blame game, only works, when you know the actual state of affairs, not simply what you are told to think.

I am not a neo-con, i am not affiliated with any party, and don't vote, so all the pity or anger or assumption is unnecessary. Politicians are tools.All of them. They march to the beat of their own, mini-empire, as they have thrained their constituents to do, albeit in microcosmic form....sound communist??? well they are cocksuckers as well....

The pun unintelligible, guessandcheck, is "....now Polly-ticks". as in the fucking bird swallowed a watch, as in politics are about as easily manipulated as words......no explanation needed for DK being a tool, and Hillary winning the election-this shit is a given-watch and see, bookmark this, then come back and talk after the farcelections. (who knows, perhaps she will fuck herself up, on camera, and they'll have to go to plan B)


Bush knew he'd be a scapegoat, when he signed up for the party....the private family party. Fuck Bushes, and Fuck the Clintons, these are creatures nothing like you and I, and above the law.