patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Unless China dumps them on the market. They would do so if war with the US was imminent or sell a nice piece of them to “send a warning shot.” Any dumping by China of US Treasuries would panic both the bond AND stock market. The pressure on the US to back off would be intense, as would be the pressure to raise the interest rates.

There is absolutely nothing preventing the treasury from deciding to sieze only chinese debt and invalidate it. You can't dump a worthless asset.

China's only real weapon would be withholding shipment of goods. When people can't get a new ipod, they'll riot.

Is it only me who finds it odd that a leftminded group will demand that a baby boy not be harmed after birth ... but also demands that the mom can have the baby murdered, dismembered and discarded at-will, at any time between conception and birth? They want to protect the peepee, but ripping the kid apart is ok? The same group wants the boy punished for saying faggot or the N word in school, unless the boy acts and says he is queer (in the case of "faggot"), or has dark enough skin and negro features to "look" Negro (in the case of "N" word). Those on the left/progressive/liberal side of things will want him in prison for life if he kills a person of color breaking into his house, but will demand he be kept alive if he murders an average white male. The same group will demand that the boy be told that tabacco use is evil and that there is no god while in school, but smoking dope, snorting crank, doing acid, performing unnatural sexual acts, being socially disruptive, are all ok.

I know I am simple minded, and I accept that. But, I really struggle to follow the liberal/left/progressive mind. Am I the only one?

Bap33 says

I know I am simple minded, and I accept that. But, I really struggle to follow the liberal/left/progressive mind. Am I the only one?

Come on don't sell yourself short. You can't be that simple minded if you were able to pack that many straw men together in a paragraph.

Oh, and if you flip on FOX "news" you will find you are not alone.

Kevin says

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

LOL.

Here's a sad story about a girl and her Objectivist fanatic father:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/04/my_father_the_objectivist

"I would argue that the crown jewel of the US economy is Tech."

And yet all of the smart kids coming out of Harvard and Wharton want to work on Wall St., not Silicon Valley. Sillicon Valley is their back up if they don't get a job on Wall St. Without Wall St., there would be no Silicon Valley. Without Silicon Valley, there still woudl be a Wall St.

thunderlips11 says

The child is rescued from dark featured big nosed Jews to safely end up in the hands of “Light and Delightsome” Blondes and Redheads. There’s a freakin’ Trident in the background, which is a symbol used by several White Supremacist groups.

Well… if you are going to have a hero that fights circumcision one of his arches is going to be a Mohel. I believe (I have not read it) that in the first comic the arch-enemy was a doctor. There are only so many people that specialize in the removal of foreskin. So the Mohel “bad guy” kind of gets a “meh” from me.

What actually is much more disturbing to me is that Foreskin Man steals the baby and gives it to people he deems as “appropriate” to raise the child. This is very reminiscent of Edgardo Mortara:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

It is not as if parents that have their boys circumcised don’t love their children, and one of the worst/abusive things you can do is rip a child out of a loving family. Far worse than circumcision. Christ, we let some meth addicts keep their kids in this country.

I wonder if in the first comic, where the arch was a doctor, was the baby stolen then? Presumably the parents were not jewish. To me it would be a big anti-semitic flag if only the jewish baby were stolen, but the non-jews got to keep their kid.

Hmmm… trident… I am not up on my symbols of white supremacy. I think about the swastika and cross. Trident makes me think of pagan ocean gods, and gladiators. A quick image search did not give any trident symbols. I am curious what groups use that symbol?

BTW, nice mormon reference with the “light and delightsome”. I think that removing that from the book of mormon may have been one of the changes to their “perfect translation”.

thunderlips11 says

I see about needing a Mohel, but the display of the physical characteristics of him was very “1936 Der Stumer” like.

Yeah... yeah, it is.

I just looked it up and it appears that the 1830 book of mormon said, "white and delightsome", but now it says "pure and delightsome".

This is of course in reference to lamanites (read: native americans) when they turn "good" they get rewarded with god turning their skin white, thus removing the "mark of cain"...

but, yes I digress as well.

shrekgrinch says

That’s why the ultimate decider on who gets the last of the oil will be military might. Period.

Oh, and if China isn’t getting enough oil because we will be blocking/redirecting shipping of oil to us means they won’t be producing anything for export, let alone be able to ship it even if they could produce export goods. Think people. Think.

China could just as easily deny the US oil. The US gets over 25% of it's oil imports from the middle east. There isn't enough capacity in the rest of the world to even begin to make that up. The Straight of Hormuz could be easily closed by the current Chinese sub fleet as well as being well within range of China's current generation of missiles. All the military might in the US inventory can't change that simple fact.

Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate

Don't forget...

Jimmy McMillan

Presidential Candidate Jimmy McMillan

The former mayoral, gubernatorial and senatorial candidate for the Rent Is Too Damn High Party announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on December last year. Explaining his decision not to contest the Democratic nomination, a party he was formerly registered with, karate expert McMillan was quoted as saying "the rent is too damn high." The flamboyant Vietnam veteran also gave some words of advice to President Obama, “If you don’t do your job right, I am coming at you!"

shrekgrinch says

kc6zlv says

Each state is sovereign and business with a presence in a state only fall under the laws of the states they have a presence in.

Then how is it that ObamaCare is on the books? Social Security and MediScare too?
ChrisLA says

This is purely speculative. In the mean time we all will be forced to fork over 10% to the government to spend on their cronyisms.

Yup!

Social Security and the health coverage do not fall under state government. They are Federal laws. This is very different from New York trying to regulate businesses in Illinois.

HousingWatcher says

“Each state is sovereign and business with a presence in a state only fall under the laws of the states they have a presence in.”
Excuse me? Have you never heard of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?

Each state can make their own laws unless Federally preempted. The Interstate Commerce Clause is a Federal Preemption to California requiring a business in another state to collect sales taxes or register with the tax board.

Wait, aren't banks supposed to make their money from investing your deposits? That's how it was in the "good ol' days." Now they've turned to parasitic fee structures that fleece the poor, working class, and middle classes the most.

Today's banks are yet another tool that the corporate and rich elite ruling class uses to suck all the money out of the hands of the poor, working class, and middle classes and put that money in their own coffers.

And they don't let it trickle anywhere once they have it. They hold onto it.

Banks should go back to doing what banks are supposed to do. They are supposed to invest in loans issued to businesses to create capital. They should collect their income in the form of interest as the businesses pay back loans. Also they should be making intelligent consumer loans to stimulate spending. Then they get their income from the interest collected as consumers pay back their loans.

Charging fees for every little transaction, or in some cases for every step of a transaction, amounts to nothing more than racketeering dressed up.

Banks are supposed to be making smart investments with depositors' money in order to turn a profit. Then they are supposed to be paying interest to depositors for the use of the depositors' money.

Banks these days act as if all money belongs to them. They act as if they are doing us favors by holding the money they allow us to call our own. Then they charge accordingly every time you want to use the money that they allow you to call your own.

People have forgotten that when you deposit money with a bank, it's still your money. You are doing a service for the bank in allowing them to use your money to make smart investments to turn a profit. A bank is supposed to pay you for the use of your money.

It's time the banks were reminded to whom the money that they hold belongs. They should remember who is providing them with the capital to make loans. Without people placing their checks into banks, the banks wouldn't exist. It's not the other way around.

marcus says

Everyone used to be circumcised in this country. Many doctors and hospital still do it by default

This is one of those things that I thought had been settled conclusively (for) many years ago, but I remember the first time the controversy came up was sometime in the 70's when every other long-established tradition was being challenged. I remember a man was suing his parents for having him cut as an infant--don't know how that turned out.

I was over at a friend's house a couple of weeks ago when his wife came back across the street where their almost 2 year old son had been swimming with the neighbors' kids in the plastic pool. First of all, the little boy was nude right there in the street--the neighbors' kids are little girls and I don't know if that implied they were nude too, but I don't approve of children even that young being taken nude into semi-public. Second, I couldn't help but notice that he had not been circumcised, which surprised me--his parents are both professionals, his mother a teacher and his father a psychologist who teaches part time and works for the Dept. of Public Safety. I don't know if his father, who is 40, is cut or not, but I'd be willing to bet he's not since his son isn't, but I think babies were still being routinely cut in 1969 when he was born. I don't understand why a decision like that can't simply be left to the descretion of the people involved instead of a lot of hoopla being made to force such a drastic change on the public sphere.

Bap33 says

I really struggle to follow the liberal/left/progressive mind

I've said it before, and I know you won't and can't comprehend it, but I am what many right wingers would consider left wing or progressive, and yet I am actually relatively conservative.

I wish to see our country closer to what in was 40 years ago, than what it is becoming.

The definition you give to "liberal thought" is dishonest and designed to enable your hate. I guess many of us need to see a boogie man enemy out there. For you it is this bizarre "liberal" whose philosophy is mostly a figment of your imagination.

What you don't realize, is that almost everything you like about the right was coopted from what used to be southern democrats. The religious right values, gun rights, attributing moral decay to the left, these are all just ploys by the corporatocracy and the plutocrats to get your vote.

None of these things are even addressed by their policies (its just about winning elections). Their policies are all about protecting the rich, and fucking over the middle class.

What does this have to do with gays, drugs, Guns or God ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-truth-about-the-ameri_b_869033.html

shrekgrinch says

On Planet Reality, the US will not invest in any of that ahead of time before the Crisis that causes all of this to come down. But we have invested in our military. Guess which will be available to provide the most expedient resolution to the crisis? Nevermind…it is pointless to appeal to any sense of logic with you.

This is close to nomination for the dumbest thing on pat.net. There are so many shrek quotes to choose from though...

Tim Pawlenty WILL be the Republican nominee. There is no point in following the primary since the outcome of it has already been pre-determined.

I like this little tibbit that was just posted on the White House website:

"Health reform in Massachusetts uses a similar structure as the Affordable Care Act. It includes exchanges where people can purchase health insurance, a personal responsibility requirement to bring everyone into the health insurance system and an employer responsibility requirement. The result? Since reform was enacted in Massachusetts more than five years ago, the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in Massachusetts has increased. And job growth in Massachusetts has kept pace with other New England State and the nation."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/08/getting-insurance-work

Make no mistake about it: This was intended to be a swipe at Mitt Romney and to serve as a preview of the attacks he will receive if nominated.

Health insurance actually falls under BOTH federal and state laws. (ie: RomneyCare). Vermont, for instance, just passed a single payer bill.

Taxpayer says

Funny you should say that. Poor people killed 3000 by attacking the world trade center. Rich people slaughtered 100,000 or more innocent Iraqi citizens who had nothing to do with 9/11. Why are rich people so violent?
Are you saying that you support the people who did 9/11? If that is the case, I don’t have anything further to discuss with you.

Huh????? How in the hell can you read that and think he supports the people that did 9/11?

Taxpayer says

Your argument is incorrect because you are saying that a ceo benefits from a worker; but a worker doesn’t benefit from the ceo.

I never said that. And as predicted you didn't answer the question about why the ceo shouldn't pay higher taxes.

Taxpayer says

started dabbling in computers in my teens using money from odd jobs. Now an independant consultant earning very well.

Hard to believe. Can you elaborate on the type of work you do (without giving away any trade secrets) ?

Taxpayer says

But punishing every rich person in sight is not the answer.

Someone makes 500K/yr and their federal taxes go up 25K and they are being punished ? (if top rate went from 35% to 39%). Awww, I can see that would be awfully painful.

This is why it's hard for me to believe believe you make the big bucks you say you do.

Taxpayer says

I agree that there are plenty of people who are rich because of crony capitalism (wall st) or because of ties to govt.

Let's not forget inherited wealth.

Taxpayer says

but you have no right to whine while still working for the unfair company.,

Maybe all of the companies should say that, and then they should all become unfair. It would be good for the shareholders in the long run if our labor costs come go down. Let's use the competitive global labor markets to our advantage, we continue to shift labor overseas while we force the cost of labor down here. It's a win win. God help the people that don't have highly marketable skills.

We will then become a sort of hybrid country. Half third world, but we will still have our gated communities, our high end luxury neighborhoods, our prisons and a cheap labor force.

What more could we want?

kc6zlv says

I have a feeling there is a significant percentage of people who aren’t smart enough to factor in things like sales tax and shipping when they order online.

Often times it's exact same stuff, just cheaper. If I go online and find the same product cheaper by a few hundred dollars I'll get it online. It doesn't make sense to pay to a local merchant middle-man who is running an inefficient business with too much overhead.

None of them produce anything, they are just resellers, and some are better than others.

Here's a radical case:

Banks have been a problem ever since the first Goldsmith realized all the people who let him hold their gold didn't claim it back either in the full amount nor all at once.

Banking has been the underlying cause of the majority of financial crises, QED. From John Law in 18th C France to Wildcat Banking in the Wild West to Mortgage Backed Securities today.

People have been complaining about usury since time immemorial. Every religion either wants to ban it or greatly restrict it. Usury in the bible is the lending of money between compatriots at ANY interest; no percentage rate is offered as a guideline. C.F. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the Gospels.

How about we just drop the whole program?

Life goes on without out, huge empires have survived without it. The great mass of the public has done without it for millenia at a time. If the government wants to stimulate, they can put the money directly in the hands of individual actors, we have the technology to do so easily.

Banking would become Full Reserve banking, you pay a fee for the storage of your money and the convenience of writing checks/using ATMs and the security and ease of transaction. That's almost 30-40% of bank profit right now. Without loans and lending, they could easily survive in their new incarnation.

OR, allow fractional reserve banking, but only in the form of Credit Unions and limited to size and scale.

Now that will make homes affordable, reduce consumer prices, foster long-term trust based business relationships, and eliminate a great deal of speculation and exploitation of the poorest.

Furthermore the best minds would have speculation as an a career path eliminated. They'd have to work on Mars Missions and better Lightbulbs instead of "Financial Innovations".

Many said slavery was indispensable and without it the economy would collapse.

Just a thought.

I think I pretty much see where you're at now.

I think progress of humanity and our country is not unlike the way that people grow. It would be nice if we could skip certain "phases." I can see it in people. Some people totally bypass or skip unnecessary learning phases in their life.

Couldn't we learn the lessons of going through becoming a third world country without actually doing it? Do we really have to destroy so much before we can figure out how to live?

Maybe we really have choices.

elliemae says

both of them are “good mormons

Is Sentator Harry Reid a Good Mormon or a Bad Mormon?

Continued loose monetary policy will eventually bring the economy out of recession, making Obama a shoe in, assuming things improve.
Newt is oversexed, obese and headed for a heart attack. He will be sued by the Pillsbury dough boy for copyright infringement and serve time for his half baked indiscretion, and his flaky buns will be buttered when he gets rolled by his cellmate, but that's the yeast of his worries.

Herman Cain won the debate in South Carolina according to those who make such judgements. He did extremely well and was well liked. If Rick Perry decided to run he's also a condender.
Romney was popular and McCain won the nomination last time because in some primaries Democrats were voting.
It's odd that some people mention Mormon regarding Romney, although there are plenty of other examples in Government.
It's more odd considering the president was a muslim, go figure.

Nomograph says

When Rove harnessed the Christian conservative vote and allowed them power in the party, he essentially destroyed the Republican’s long-term viability

I think it began with the Moral Majority that helped to elect Reagan. Pappy Bush drifted away from them and Rove steered them back.

The whole friggin Christian conservative movement doesn't seem like it embodies any kind of social justice like the movement in the Northern churches against the Fugitive Slave War which is what finally ignited the powder keg that became known as the "Civil War".

Nomograph says

Sounds like the next credit bubble is brewing

Herr Doctor Professor:
The big credit bubble that's brewing is student loans, debt slavery that cannot be discharged, plus some of it subsidized by taxpayers, to fund their lifestyles.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369840105112326.html

Well Well Well!

OPEC says they wont up production,(and why should they, the world is over producing as it is) and Oil shoots up over 102 from 98 in just one day. Or should I say Big Oil pumped the commodity up to 102.
But last night while we were sleeping, the other side of the Globe dumped their Oil holdings.

This does not seem like a Commodity that is in short supply to me.
Now for you're average investor, he is going to sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch the fireworks, as Oil goes back down to the 70-80 dollar range.

BUT! If you're Big Oil with unregulated trading rules, that has had a captive audience of $4.00 Gasoline for the last 4 months. You have a huge cash reserves to buy back all of those contracts people are dumping.

My guess is Oil wont see $97 before it is back to over $100 before close today, or Monday morning open.

But make no mistake it wont be your average Commodity day trader players buying in that market, but the Oil companies buying back their self interest.

Vote for your favorite Romeny flip flop:

'I will work and fight for stem cell research.'

'In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.'

'This is a completely airtight kennel mounted on the top of our car.'

'They're not happy that my dog loves fresh air.'

'If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.'

'What works in one state may not be the answer for another.'

'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'

'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

'I would like to have campaign spending limits.'

'The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.'

'I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.'

'There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.'

'I've been a hunter pretty much all my life.'

'Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.'

http://mittromneyflipflops.com/#javascript:void(0)

Thats how it has always been, hasn't it.

your discourse is welcomed, and your position is yours to defend, but to suggest anyone who sees the liberal/progressive/leftist position as being bad for a healthy - free - society only does so out of anger or boogie men seems to lack some basic depth. One may even say you only do so because of your hate for all things good/just/moral/ or God-like. And that reduces the discourse to "I know you are but what am I?", or some other schoolyard level bs.

People have moral issues. Nothing new there. But, a healthy FREE group (family/clan/tribe/neighborhood/town/city/county/region/state/nation/country/planet) MUST hold the actions of the individual to a standard higher than the base human condition of morality. THe standard MUST be set high enough to ensure a healthy society and to protect the just from the unjust. Otherwise we revert to "survival of the fittest" and "biggest bully wins" rules. People go hungry, and splinter into smaller survival groups, and soon women become livestock, just a little more important than a cow.

As we sit in the safety and freedom of America, our view of things gets twisted. Mine and yours. We take everything for granted.

How very scary. Some of those escrow deals don't close. Now the agent owes money to his broker.

sybrib says

Is Sentator Harry Reid a Good Mormon or a Bad Mormon?

Ah, you - I tell you secrets, grasshopper. Harry Reid doesn't count as a Mormon Politician. He's a (gasp) Democrat! And he's not from Utah, isn't from a politically entrenched family and he's not related to an Osmond.

About 90% of the state fits the above description. ;)

Not to his broker - it's an independent loaning company. Like a payday lender. No difference.

tatupu70 says

shrekgrinch says

On Planet Reality, the US will not invest in any of that ahead of time before the Crisis that causes all of this to come down. But we have invested in our military. Guess which will be available to provide the most expedient resolution to the crisis? Nevermind…it is pointless to appeal to any sense of logic with you.

This is close to nomination for the dumbest thing on pat.net. There are so many shrek quotes to choose from though…

Go for it!

http://patrick.net/?p=605447

ChrisLA says

Thats how it has always been, hasn’t it.

No just since Oil broke $70.
Oil hit $70 for the first time in '06, it was a huge big deal at the time. Here's a paper from Berkly on the History of the Oil Woes of the last 50 years.

http://dr.berkeley.edu/pdfs_to_post/OIL_OVERVIEW_OF_5DECADE_HISTORY_AND_TODAYS_CHALLENGES-1.pdf

Here's their perception of what was driving the price then, and their assessment of how global conflict was attributing to Oil doubling in less than a years, and they were expecting more.

The new century, 2000, has uprooted the acquiescence of the 1990s. The rising demands of countries such as China and India coupled with increased international insecurity have strained oil supplies and risen prices. China has increased its demand by 4 mbd since 2000, for example. Political instability in Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia and particularly Iraq and Iran have destabilized the oil market. Some analysts conservatively argue that political instability accounts for $10-15 of the current price of $70 per barrel. Furthermore, output from the North Sea and Alaska has begun to decline. The rising prices have not spurred an economic recession or inflation, but major users of energy and low-income consumers are negatively affected. Projections for the next year indicate prices are not likely to decline below $60 per barrel.

Come on Nigeria, I remember that being used an excuse, I was ranting about it in real time on Patnet's old forum. Funny how the Arab spring a bigger ToDo than any conflict above, has not once been blamed for current prices.

Finally, none of the President’s(Bush this was '06) proposals aim at making American consumers pay the full cost of oil. Oil causes many negative externalities, such as global warming and international insecurity. The external costs of America’s consumption of oil are not internalized into the cost consumers pay. As a result, consumers over-consume oil and gasoline because they do not face its full cost. In sum, energy policy requires long-term thinking and planning as well as fresh approaches and ideas. The United States cannot afford to ignore energy policy any longer.

Wop!! There it is!

Even in '06 the Evil Bastards were over at Berkly with their iBooks and thier Mocha Lattes making their argument to making the "Consumer" pay, i.e. the American people the Tax Payer, the Assholes paying the Oil Subsidies in the first Goddamn place. Making us over pay for Oil were not consuming all of, for reasons we all don't agree on. Making arguments that were only theories for the cause and effect of the moment, in '06. As most of the reasons for Oil hitting $70 for the first time, were pure speculation anyway. Russia's Political instability was their conflict with Georgia, which is over now, Opec has said many times over Oil would be $30 if were left to Free market forces in West.

The President and other law makers have also proposed reviewing the profits of American oil companies and repealing tax breaks for energy companies. A “windfall” profits tax has been proposed by some legislators, but this was tried after the 1979 oil crisis and resulted in less investment by American oil companies for new sources of oil. Some have proposed windfall taxes only on the oil reserves that companies dumped on the market during the price spike.

Let me get this, in 79 the Oil companies cried boo hoo about that old fashioned Foreign Oil boogeyman.
Well OK that was 79 and another president, why are we still supporting them in 2011?
Now granted this a paper from 2006, about Bush, but it is a paper written by the Liberal Numero Uno, collectivly speaking, contemplating how "THEY" would run things if they were King around here.

And we all know what happened in '08 Right?

elliemae says

sybrib says

Is Sentator Harry Reid a Good Mormon or a Bad Mormon?

Ah, you - I tell you secrets, grasshopper. Harry Reid doesn’t count as a Mormon Politician. He’s a (gasp) Democrat! And he’s not from Utah, isn’t from a politically entrenched family and he’s not related to an Osmond.
About 90% of the state fits the above description.
Eschew Obfuscation

And let's not forget that Harry Reid won his Senate seat in one State, Nevada. In Nevada there is a decently sized Mormon community. The State does border Utah. He isn't runnning for President but his national success would be stunted by the fact that he is a Mormon. Most Americans seem to shudder at the idea of a Mormon running the show. Most Americans aren't as rabbidly opposed to Mormons as Fundamentalist "Christians" but they still have a slight mistrust of Mormons.

Romney has the same problem nationally. He won office in the very tolerant State of Massachusetts. On the national stage his Mormonism will hold him back.