patrick.net

They're basically running the same playbook that worked in 1994.

Welcome to politics. If McCain's an asshole, so are 59,934,813 other people.

> Welcome to politics. If McCain’s an asshole, so are 59,934,813 other people.

I can't believe the number is that low, surely it's higher than that, after all this is America, and we pride ourselves for being #1, And where else would assholes live, but in America.

I knew McCain was an asshole when he make the statement, “I still believe our fundamental underpinnings of our economy are strong.”

This was in the middle of the wall street collapse that was rocking the nation. I beleive this is one of the main reason's he lost the election, he can across as being seriously out of touch. I sounded very simular to another qoute,
“There is no cause to worry. The high tide of prosperity will continue”
- Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. September 1929

Actually the rest of that statement was ". . . but it's obvious that we are facing challenges which will require action such as the Federal Reserve took today. "

Politicians have to lie. To tell the truth would result in the markets hitting the circuit breakers.

What really sank McCain in my eyes was having Gramm around as his "advisor". Like we needed the likes of that f---er around.

Anybody happily voting for Gramm AND Palin in 2008 are creatures too alien for me to really understand.

The answer is yes. But you already knew that. The real question that matters is the one I constantly ask myself, so please try not to get offended: Are you an asshole?

The only person I can change with 100% certainty is myself. All other people, including me, have this thing called "free will" and I don't get to mess with that. *wink*

If I can answer "yes" to this question, I know I need to make some changes in myself for my betterment. Hopefully that translates into the betterment of the world and the healing of the world because then the world would have one less asshole. Some days the job is just too big.

Does anyone relate?

Honest Abe says

freedom (sorry, I know you don’t like that word).

freedom to get screwed by the 10% that control 70%+ of the wealth in this country. Everywhere the working class turns they're getting screwed -- at the gas pump by OPEC, at rent or mortgage time thanks to low property taxes inflating the cost of land, by the gaggle of rentiers in health services extracting their profit margins via IP law and guildmaking.

Don't get me wrong, freedom is great. Historically, too much government has been waay worse than too little. But libertarians and minarchists in their one-way drive for freedom either intentionally or myopically elide the reality that he who has the gold makes the rules in any truly "free" society.

> ... freedom to get screwed by the 10% that control 70%+ of the wealth in this country. Everywhere
> the working class turns they’re getting screwed — at the gas pump by OPEC

Just for the record, the OPEC is not part of "This" country, so them screwing with you has nothing to do the the weathly in this country.

Rich people are willing to provide jobs and promote their value. Poor people think negatively about their job, about "opportunity" and their ability to promote their own value.

Resenting opportunity and the ability to promote ones self is one of the greatest obstacles to success.

Small, negative thinking along with small actions lead to being both broke and bitter. Big thinking and big actions lead to the opportunity to having both money and meaning. Again - free choice.

I guess it all comes down to the choice: Which do you mentally "buy into" ?
(1) The opportunity of success, with no guarantee of results. Or:
(2) No opportunity of success, but guaranteed, low, equal, miserable results for all.

How do you get rich? How do you make big $? Where does the money come from?

Guess what, we can't all make big bucks. You gotta have some one cleaning toilets, sweeping floors, cleaning the blood and guts off of the ER walls and curtains, preparing food, cleaning your hotel room, picking up your garbage. Or should we pay these folks 6 figures but then that would cut into profits or jack up rates.

Why is it so hard for folks to see that we need a service industry and that it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have the capability to get rich? Why can't we provide a safety net for those in these service industries that can't afford to save for retirement, can barely afford health care, if their company even offers it.

Should the nurses aid that is wiping your bum in the nursing home make 6 figures? How much do you think your stay will cost you?

TechGromit says

the OPEC is not part of “This” country, so them screwing with you has nothing to do the the weathly in this country.

Multinational oil companies have been entertwined with The Establishment since the 1920s at least. If we had a serious energy management policy we'd have a $2/gallon gasoline tax to turn OPEC's pricing power into our gain.

On topic:

McCain calls for a summer 'gas-tax holiday'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24120727/

Honest Abe says

Rich people are willing to provide jobs and promote their value.

oh lord. You type a lot of words but the actual information content is miniscule.

Jobs in the private sector generally exist due to the wealth-creation associated with them. It is the laborer's personal labor that actually creates this value, leveraged with the capital investment of the employer to provide the necessary work environment and infrastructure.

But as usual you are employing logical fallacy here, in this case the fallacy of composition. When 10% of the country owns 70% of the wealth -- and upwards of 30% of the country doesn't have discretionary income after food & rent -- something is rotten in the system. Too much wealth is chasing economic rents and not value-add per se.

They should ask the people on the front lines how to improve healthcare. Politicos with so many houses they can't recall the number certainly have lost touch... if they ever had it.

grywlfbg says

I congratulate him. He’s exactly right when he says that it needs to be paid for first.

While I can agree with that, my point is he paints himself a huge target. People who are unemployed, and need assistance aren't worried about how the congress is going to pay for it.

grywlfbg says

I have an idea, bring our troops home and shut down all our overseas bases....

We tried an Isolationism, only to get dragged into World War 1 and 2, I do not agree that closing foriegn bases is such a good idea.

grywlfbg says

We’re paying Halliburton $1,000,000 per solider per year in Iraq. We wouldn’t even have to shrink the size of the military to realize a lot of cost savings.

I can at least agree on this point, we should have never gotten involved in Iraq. It was a very costly mistake, Bush turned a budget surplus into a gaping hole with this one war. A war never needed to be fought, Saddam was fairly harmless to our interests in the Middle East, in fact he actaully helped stablize the entire region. Sure he was a ruthless dictator, who cares.

TechGromit says

We tried an Isolationism, only to get dragged into World War 1 and 2, I do not agree that closing foriegn bases is such a good idea.

It was our forward presence in the Western Pacific that got us "dragged into" WW2. WW I was an optional war for us, the French and British may or may not have needed our help in the face of Germany's 1918 offensive.

All of our troops in NATO deployments are nothing but a huge misallocation of capital. Our Central Asian footprint can be argued either way I suppose. East Asia, we are positioned against NK and China. NK should be Japan & China's job now and if we are still worried about the PRC, forward deploying against a power that owns a growing chunk of your economy is pretty bizarre and there are better investments we could be making -- at any rate I wouldn't ask any American to lay down his life in defense of Taiwan's independence.

TechGromit says

Sure he was a ruthless dictator, who cares.

The plan made a certain amount of sense for American commercial interests and hence the American masses. An unboxed Saddam would have swung his oil economy to French and Russian investment, and the Eurozone in general. His, and his sons', survival in power would have been a big F-You to America, setting back public diplomacy and our national image in the region.

IMHO this war was more about ensuring the restarted Iraq economy was an upstanding new citizen in the USD trade bloc. The influx of neocon carpetbaggers under Bremer during the heady days of 2003-2005 bears this analysis out I think.

Strategically, it's also nice owning big chunks of the Iraq hinterland, after we were booted out of the KSA. I have a college friend who served a year in Balad, I don't think he set foot in Iraq proper.

IMHO the "war" in iraq was created because we were pissed off about 911 - and gw had been warned of the threat and ignored it. He did it to deflect from his inability to protect us. So it was a way to do something (anything) and make it seem like he had a handle on it. Hence the "mission accomplished" debacle.

When Saddam was captured, I think it was Jon Stewart who said something to the effect of, "finally after spending years and millions of dollars, we've caught the guy who had nothing to do with 911."

GW, the worst president or the very worst president of all time? John McCain would have been worse.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14482501

Romney repeatedly slammed McCain for not understanding the economy.

"His views on the economy, well, I think are sort of summed up by his own statement that it's not really something he understands that well."

fun stuff.

TechGromit says

We tried an Isolationism, only to get dragged into World War 1 and 2, I do not agree that closing foriegn bases is such a good idea.

The American military presence in Saudi Arabia was and is the biggest driver of muslim terrorism. It has been bin laden's rallying point for 20 years.

I don't particularly care for McCain or the republicans in general. But on one of the issues I think they are correct. The bill does little to actually address the root cause of healthcare delivery overall. Why is it I can take my dog to the vet and get it a hyserectomy for say 300-400 dollars but the same operation costs 30000 for my wife. Granted, in most cases people aren't dogs. But seriously, are we to believe it is reasonable for it to 1000 times as much. Vets are doctors too and none of them are showing up at homeless shelters because they don't make enough money. We could go on, but the real bottom line here is no matter which party and no matter which political issue is being debated by our elected representatives, they are bought and paid for by their corporate financeers. They can wrap themselves in the flag all the want about how much they care about America, but they only really care about serving their corporate masters so they can be re-electected. How else can you explain their unwillingness to address the illegal immigration problem that costs this country (and by the way health industry as well as social services) untold billions of dollars every year. It is because their corparate masters want it that way. Our elected officials should be made to wear NASCAR style jumpsuits with their corparate sponsors on them. At least then we'll know for sure which corperation they want to steer your money toward. Plus I would love the personal humiliation they would be put though to show them for the corperate whores they truely are.

deanrite says

Why is it I can take my dog to the vet and get it a hyserectomy for say 300-400 dollars but the same operation costs 30000 for my wife

A nice puppy costs about $300 no? How much is your wife's life worth?

Obama was elected promising he'd at least fight for single payer health care. Republicans are REALLY opposed to that so I fail to see how they are correct in this fight since if it weren't for Republican opposition we'd have the votes in the senate to pass the public option.

The last thing Republicans want is a Canadian-style single payer with the market power to set prices. In Canada, a practice can either take or not take Medicare patients, not the half-assed three-class system we have now.

I agree about immigration btw. Throwing the employers of illegal aliens into jail would pretty much fix the problem, or at least drive the economy so underground the IRS would have a field day.

Well Troy, I aggree with you on single payer. The insurance comanies are jacking up there rates right now mostly because their chief investment vehicle is commercial real estate. That's the only option they have to keep there shareholders from firing their (management) asses. I doubt they'll ever get a government bailout. But when is the last time you saw an INS co go belly up. And single payer like Canada would appear a good system. I've talked to tons of canadians who love it- no fuss. All the other bs you hear is just bs spouted by the who would be the biggest losers here, insurance cos. Only big issue I can see is, the single payer (govt) still has to reign in costs. Remember, hospitals etc are big corporations with big profit motives too. That is what I agree with the republicans about. There is no way I can see marking up aspirin 1000%. You get my point? Where is the competition when your locked in to the hospital and they just say "pay up sucka?"

deanrite says

Where is the competition when your locked in to the hospital and they just say “pay up sucka?”

The free market doesn't really do stuff we "need" very well. It can handle developing and marketing 100 brands of toothpaste, but where wants become needs is where you find economic rent.

I agree Troy. Can you imagine private military; we have mercinaries working for us- oh, we call them security forces in Iraq. They've already proved to be an embarrassment there. What about private police force, oh we have those too- it's called protection. Ask business owners how that works out for them- it's called organized crime. People complain that one payer is socialism and they are right. But health insurers basic run there system as socialist manner, except they make big profit. In truth the constitution says nothing of which economic system or combination of systems we are to employ. They patriots who fought to tear us away from the economic tyrany of the English monarchy because the people were deprived of basic human needs. Ask yourself now, are we suffering at the hands of an economic tyranny? Is it really the govt itself, or is it those who pull the strings of those running the govt that are the problem? My guess the later and our govt is thouroughly corrupt. The founders said the cost of freedom is paid for with the blood of patriots against enemies both foriegn and DOMESTIC.

agreed

Mccain is a politician, willing to do whatever it takes to stay in office.

Absolutly correct.

Uniquely annoying about John McCain is that he thought Sarah Palin would be a great Vice President. The rest of y'alls complaints are generic to many politicians today. Palin was an immediate turnoff. I knew all I needed to know at that point.

I like Palin

Palin doesnt know when to turn on her filters. She isnt articulate enough to prevent the run on sentences which makes her seem ignorant, yet when you read through her transcripts what she is saying makes sense after you have had time to digest her garble.

4X says

Palin doesnt know when to turn on her filters. She isnt articulate enough to prevent the run on sentences which makes her seem ignorant, yet when you read through her transcripts what she is saying makes sense after you have had time to digest her garble.

So let me get this straight - once you project what you want to hear onto her slaughter of the english language, suddenly it makes sense to you.

This is the essence of the tea party movement.

Yes, John McCain is an asshole. He doesn't even need his wife's money.
He has lived his entire adult life with government healthcare. First through the military then through politics. So yes, he is a special kind of asshole to try and prevent a public option in healthcare for the rest of us.

Bap33 says

I like Palin

Well, um... okay, noted.

stillrentinginLA says

4X says

Palin doesnt know when to turn on her filters. She isnt articulate enough to prevent the run on sentences which makes her seem ignorant, yet when you read through her transcripts what she is saying makes sense after you have had time to digest her garble.

So let me get this straight - once you project what you want to hear onto her slaughter of the english language, suddenly it makes sense to you.
This is the essence of the tea party movement.

NO, I am saying she cant articulate her thoughts well enough to lead anything.

elliemae says

IMHO the “war” in iraq was created because we were pissed off about 911 - and gw had been warned of the threat and ignored it. He did it to deflect from his inability to protect us. So it was a way to do something (anything) and make it seem like he had a handle on it. Hence the “mission accomplished” debacle.

vs Al Gore who has been beating the War Drum since 92?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
then again in 2000?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=related
certainly had an influence on attacks on iraq long before 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc&feature=related

In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added
that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen

.”

thomas.wong1986 says

In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added
that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen

There's a big difference between making a speech at the Pentagon and attacking a foreign country, throwing away American lives and treasure. I'm not sure you can even compare the two. There are lots of bad people in the world--we can't go around attacking every one of them.