>> ^Babymech:

I find it telling it that the squirrels used to chase after "nuts of their own choosing," since all the presidential candidates the Tea Party wants to back are nuts of their own choosing.


"Teabagging"... "nuts"... what are these people really trying to say?

I find it telling it that the squirrels used to chase after "nuts of their own choosing," since all the presidential candidates the Tea Party wants to back are nuts of their own choosing.

If you read the report, the debt situation was part of it. It should be addressed. But the major indisputable catalyst for the downgrade was the wholely irresponsible use of default as a political weapon. And having a powerful faction of the House actually want a default to happen. That is the sign of a banana republic.

I said above that ability to pay is a major factor in a credit rating. We had several teabag and republican house members and presidential candidates loudly yell that we shouldn't even be willing to pay our debt, even if we were able. Almost every proposal was rejected by the house faction, many of whom apparently pledged not to raise taxes or even raise the debt ceiling. WTF? Finally we have people who didn't want to raise the ceiling because the default would be a "loss" for Obama. I think every one of these reasons is irrational.

If I didn't think they were retarded, I would call their actions treasonous. They want to see the president fail so badly, they are willing to wreck my money (401k, buying power, etc) to do it. Well, mission accomplished, guys.

Obama is the president, but budgets and the (stupid but encoded) debt ceiling vote must come out of the House.

Bottom line: If the republicans really want to reduce the debt, they should pass an appropriate budget next time. Don't default (or even threaten to default) on our existing obligations!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.
Well, the Right failed.
TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.
No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.
The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.
>> ^lampishthing:
Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:
Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating
You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?
Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

*promote *money
I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column about corporate personhood earlier this year.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/hale-let-the-corporations-have-their-rights-role-in-government-1.2531819

It would be interesting if corporations weren't people. But they are.

The aftermath of a few slapdash U.S. Supreme Court decisions means that today's companies resemble citizens more and more. And, much like the pigs and men sitting at the table in "Animal Farm," it is already impossible to determine which is which.

A few key court decisions sowed the seeds for corporate personhood. In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), it was ruled that a private business was exempt from state laws seeking to interfere with established contracts. In other words, the court ruled, states can't pass laws that impair business contracts.

In 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision — and its implications were huge — granted corporations the rights of citizenship.

Just last year the Supreme Court ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that First Amendment rights should be extended to corporations. The floodgate of contributions — mostly anonymous — helped sweep the Tea Party to power and shake up the status quo in Washington, D.C.

It won't be long until corporations are extended Constitutional protections enjoyed by U.S. citizens. Rather than stall sharing our rights with big business, perhaps we should endorse it.

Surely, the National Rifle Association would have no qualm extending Second Amendment rights to big businesses. They may argue corporations should enjoy the same protections our forefathers had. After all, they'll say, why should corporations have to only rely on banks and lobbyists to protect their interests? They're guaranteed to blanket their members with pro-corporate paraphernalia backing whichever businesses packs the most heat. And nothing short of San Francisco can stop the NRA.

As soon as Constitutional rights are extended to corporations, they should be able to run for president. Foreign companies — much like Arnold Schwarzenegger — need not apply.

Rather than spending money for voters to elect whichever presidential candidates get the most campaign contributions and airtimes, corporations could cut out the middle man and invest in their own campaigns.

Congress is guaranteed to be friendly to a corporation in the Oval Office. Two corporations — a president and a vice president — could help put an end to wasteful government spending by working closely with legislation. Most legislators already nip at the bit for corporate donations; it's essential to winning. Corporations would bridge the aisle between Democrats and Republicans better than George Washington.

Boeing Co., the world's largest plane manufacturer, would never land billions of dollars' worth of imprudent government contracts to build impractical engines if the money were coming out of their own pockets, so to speak. And Congress would never again have to pursue worthless pet projects to keep jobs in their state, because worthless pet projects would cost corporate White House money.

Every "bridge to nowhere" must have a strip mall at the end.

As is, a majority of the Supreme Court already defers status to big business over citizens, and it wouldn't take too long until the minority could be replaced. The awesome powers of a corporate-backed executive branch, marching in lockstep with the legislative and judicial, would outrival any nation. Even China would eventually owe us money.

Of course, a business oligarchy is probably not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution originally intended for us. But lesser nations have endured far more with far less. And who among us doesn't want what's best for us?

Critics of corporate personhood want to amend the U.S Constitution to limit the rights of corporations. They argue that corporations, because their sole purpose is to make a profit, shouldn't have the same rights as you or I.

These critics are especially alarmed that corporations can make significantly larger political contributions than individual citizens. Some critics say that this is just one example where the rights of corporations actually exceed the rights of citizens. It does seem lopsided. But with such a global competitive market, how else can we compete with other countries?

Maybe corporate personhood isn't such a bad idea after all. What else could unite Americans more than having Coke and Pepsi run on the same ticket?

If a corporation were president it just might invest more time and more money at home. Then, maybe, we could all sit at the table.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)

Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.

If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.

I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.

Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.

Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.


Are you saying freedom is an impossible ideal? That we must submit to a greater authority to manage our lives?


If your ideal of "freedom" is "no one can ever tell anyone else what to do", then yes, I think that's an impossible demand on reality.

If your ideal of "freedom" is "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property", then it's not freedom, it's authoritarianism.

But mostly I'm saying proponents of free markets should try to address claims in this video about the negative effects of a shift toward free market policies, and not just deny that looking at events in the US can tell us anything meaningful about conservative/libertarian/free market/right-wing ideology because we haven't abolished things like taxes, the Federal Reserve, and Congress yet.

>> ^NetRunner:

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.



Are you saying freedom is an impossible ideal? That we must submit to a greater authority to manage our lives?

>> ^NetRunner:

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.



Of course. And is it not in the nature of man to push those lofty ideals on everyone else, regardless of whether they are relevant to the discussion?

My intention was only to point out that both sides equally play the zealot, interjecting their belief that all evils of the world are caused by/fixed by lassiez faire economics. Arm-chair idealists, if you will.

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:

The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)

The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

cue free market apologists in 5..4...3..2..1....


What you imply is that the free market rewrote the laws to favor giant corporations? That the common middle class man paid millions of dollars to lobby in the Capitol for laws which effectively enforce industry monopolies?

The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)

The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.

So he's saying that he likes the song "Born This Way"?

I kind of thought that song had a specific meaning that maybe conservative presidential candidates wouldn't agree with.

Maybe he doesn't know what it's about.

I don't necessarily agree with all the points in your message but I can most certainly appreciate the way that they were communicated. An opinion can be much better appreciated when it is not preceded by insults and hostility.

I am taking you off my troll watch list. ;^)

>> ^quantumushroom:

Man-o-man Quantum, you seem to have some serious anger issues.
Anyone who values the exceptional, free and prosperous America is angry with the Obamateur and his merry band of tax cheats and kleptocrats. Not to say the Rs are much better, but they are, in fact, better.
The sad thing is that some of what you say is very true but because of your deep seated hatred for anything left of the extreme right you undermine your own argument against any leftist bias.
Remember that I don't claim objectivity like the leftmedia (actually even that isn't true any more, they abandoned what little journalistic cred they had by joining Obama's 2008 campaign). I have my opinions but there also the numbers, such as unemployment and debt, which no one can fudge for very long.

What really intrigues me is your comment; "Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist...". As you appear to be a bitter right wing extremist, I am curious to know what you think it means to be an American? What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?
You may be surprised to discover I don't necessarily think Palin is ready to be prez (the night is young) but the election of His Earness proves that a sad slight-majority of Americans are willing to overlook a lack of experience and substance, another measure by which BHO fails. Palin governed a whole state, whereas Obama was a junior senator who voted "present" most of the time.

What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?
Sarah believes in America, Barack doesn't. Sarah celebrates the good, Barack believes that America is the greatest threat to the world and should be "reigned in". Sarah may not know the birthdays of all the Founding Fathers, but is aligned with those principles more than Barack, who believes that the FF "didn't go far enough" in redistributing wealth, which was never their aim.
Sarah is a leader, capable of galvanizing the American People, just like Barack. It's why the left hates her. Even Howard 'Scream' Dean just warned that she could beat His Earness in '12.
IMO she can't screw things up any more than Barry.

Sarah is a paid shill for Fox News. Sarah is riding around the country on a family vacation, on the dime of her generous contributors, and she gets away with it because she has specifically NOT put her hat into the ring to run. Sarah won't run, because there's more money in being a paid personality than in actually doing something. The minute she says "I'm running for president" the free ride is over, and its back to bumm-fuck Alaska for her brood.

Sarah has a Super-PAC. Sarah is soaking you idiots for all you're worth. Sarah is laughing her ass off at you every night, while she eats $50 steaks.>> ^quantumushroom:

Man-o-man Quantum, you seem to have some serious anger issues.
Anyone who values the exceptional, free and prosperous America is angry with the Obamateur and his merry band of tax cheats and kleptocrats. Not to say the Rs are much better, but they are, in fact, better.
The sad thing is that some of what you say is very true but because of your deep seated hatred for anything left of the extreme right you undermine your own argument against any leftist bias.
Remember that I don't claim objectivity like the leftmedia (actually even that isn't true any more, they abandoned what little journalistic cred they had by joining Obama's 2008 campaign). I have my opinions but there also the numbers, such as unemployment and debt, which no one can fudge for very long.

What really intrigues me is your comment; "Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist...". As you appear to be a bitter right wing extremist, I am curious to know what you think it means to be an American? What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?
You may be surprised to discover I don't necessarily think Palin is ready to be prez (the night is young) but the election of His Earness proves that a sad slight-majority of Americans are willing to overlook a lack of experience and substance, another measure by which BHO fails. Palin governed a whole state, whereas Obama was a junior senator who voted "present" most of the time.

What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?
Sarah believes in America, Barack doesn't. Sarah celebrates the good, Barack believes that America is the greatest threat to the world and should be "reigned in". Sarah may not know the birthdays of all the Founding Fathers, but is aligned with those principles more than Barack, who believes that the FF "didn't go far enough" in redistributing wealth, which was never their aim.
Sarah is a leader, capable of galvanizing the American People, just like Barack. It's why the left hates her. Even Howard 'Scream' Dean just warned that she could beat His Earness in '12.
IMO she can't screw things up any more than Barry.

Man-o-man Quantum, you seem to have some serious anger issues.

Anyone who values the exceptional, free and prosperous America is angry with the Obamateur and his merry band of tax cheats and kleptocrats. Not to say the Rs are much better, but they are, in fact, better.

The sad thing is that some of what you say is very true but because of your deep seated hatred for anything left of the extreme right you undermine your own argument against any leftist bias.

Remember that I don't claim objectivity like the leftmedia (actually even that isn't true any more, they abandoned what little journalistic cred they had by joining Obama's 2008 campaign). I have my opinions but there also the numbers, such as unemployment and debt, which no one can fudge for very long.

What really intrigues me is your comment; "Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist...". As you appear to be a bitter right wing extremist, I am curious to know what you think it means to be an American? What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?

You may be surprised to discover I don't necessarily think Palin is ready to be prez (the night is young) but the election of His Earness proves that a sad slight-majority of Americans are willing to overlook a lack of experience and substance, another measure by which BHO fails. Palin governed a whole state, whereas Obama was a junior senator who voted "present" most of the time.

What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?

Sarah believes in America, Barack doesn't. Sarah celebrates the good, Barack believes that America is the greatest threat to the world and should be "reigned in". Sarah may not know the birthdays of all the Founding Fathers, but is aligned with those principles more than Barack, who believes that the FF "didn't go far enough" in redistributing wealth, which was never their aim.

Sarah is a leader, capable of galvanizing the American People, just like Barack. It's why the left hates her. Even Howard 'Scream' Dean just warned that she could beat His Earness in '12.

IMO she can't screw things up any more than Barry.