namelesstavern.net

vonkaar wrote:

Narrock wrote:It's hilarious how the liberals have to defend their cronies by saying, "well, what about <insert republican or conservative figurehead here>?". That's SO weak of an argument, but hilarious nonetheless. Furthermore, I'm not even a republican anymore. But I'd vote for McCain or Paris Hilton before I would ever consider voting for Obama. Obama's plan is absolutely nuts and is the worst thing that could happen to America...

you... just... did... it...

I hate when people type in all caps to make a point.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT.

Clever!

Arlos it is an interesting point to explore of if it is or is not a states rights issue. Of course with a federal ban it seems to point to being a federal issue, but as we all know the federal government has grown into areas it really shouldn't be in to a high degree. I am inclined to see it as a state issue vs a federal one simply because the direct impact is mostly to the individual state, however consider that if it were given to the states to decide, and California chose not to allow drilling and Oregon did, an accident could most definitely affect Northern California. From that aspect I'm inclined to view it as at least partially a federal issue, much like interstate waterways are beholden to some federal control. For this reason, safety regulations I believe would be federal domain to ensure uniformity, but I would be inclined to consider the actual allowing of drilling to be a state issue.

In the end though, if it is so certain that coastal states would not go for it, then what is the concern with having a congressional vote to lift the ban, assuming of course that it would not be a federal mandate forcing states to allow drilling (and it is my understanding that it is not, it simply opens the way for the states to decide by removing the federal restrictions).

Gypsiyee wrote:a piece on the Huffington Post a few minutes ago that I quite liked, and agreed with whole-heartedly regarding this whole mess:

I disagree with the premise that the Edwards story somehow mandates that McCains past needs to be headlines, because one is current events, the other is not.

The Edwards story isn't news because he's in the political spot light, it's "news" because of celebrity status. To be sure I think political talk shows should be discussing McCain's past, not because of the Edwards deal, but because of the office he pursues, but it is history at this point and has no place as a current events headline. Like I've already stated I don't really care for any celebrity transgressions being considered headline news worthy... I don't give a rats ass about what Paris Hilton or Brittney Spears is doing, and have very little interest in the Edwards deal beyond looking at it and going thank god he wasn't the nominee because it would sidetrack the public away from the national issues we face. If it were newsworthy out of political motivation as the author suggests, then it would be a completely silly, as it's not going to do any damage to current party or candidacy (he's no longer running or in any office) beyond maybe backfiring because it shows that if the Democratic party got nothing else right, at least it separated the wheat from the chaff.

I agree with you to an extent, Lueyen, but as a comparison - Obama's childhood overseas is ancient history, and that's been blasted into the ground to cast him as a muslim. It's failed, but that's not to say they didn't try their damnedest, and that was when he was a child with no control over his life.

Why shouldn't McCain be fair game? We talk about his war hero status to glorify him for this position, also ancient history - the good should be taken with the bad, no? If we can glorify his service, certainly we can also point out that during his service he cheated on his crippled wife and left her for a beauty queen, can we not?

In a presidential race, your entire history is fair game and should be put in the spotlight equally. If the right wants to use Edwards' affair as a means to discredit the left (which is in part why it's such big news - they know people will buy into it, just like Mindia has), certainly they're subject to scrutiny when their candidate was guilty of the same thing, and he IS still running for office.

it seems there is a potentially effective attack to bring down the shiny image of the democratic potentials for office, not by attacking obama but everyone around him (edwards, and recently clinton's campaign memo to attack obama as unamerican)

The left consistently discredits themselves through acts of immorality, scandals, hypocisy, "leaders" who are philanderers (clinton, edwards, "rev" jesse jackson, ETC.) and when the media catches on to it and talks about it for weeks at a time, I just smile and grab a bag of popcorn. Yes, these are individuals doing this, and not the democratic party as a whole, but there seems to be a pattern there with the left.

Now for those of you who drink the Obama cool aid... just because a politician is an excellent orator, is good-looking, has poise and stature, etc. does not make that politician a good leader. Put on your thinking caps, and listen to the substance of what Obama says. Hard to do isn't it? That's because there is no substance to Obama's speeches. He consistently flip-flops. He says anything he wants his followers to hear so that he will gain their vote in November. He's also been caught in several lies. I'm not going to list them all... just Google it for yourselves. Then he talks about his plan for "tax cuts for the middle class." BWAHAHAHAHA If you buy that then you would probably also buy some ocean front property in Nevada. There is no smearing of Obama's name in the media. He smears himself constantly, and the media merely puts a spotlight on it. My favorite laughable Obama statement is that Americans should learn Spanish and other foreign languages... when HE himself only knows English. hahaha What a tool.

Narrock wrote:Now for those of you who drink the Obama cool aid... just because a politician is an excellent orator, is good-looking, has poise and stature, etc. does not make that politician a good leader. etc.. What a tool.

this seems to fit McCain as well..

They're both whack....like crack

(channeling Whitney Houston there)

oh my gracious Mindia, that has to be one of the most mis-informed, uneducated, mouth-frothing, fox news-fueled posts I've ever seen from you.

Narrock wrote:The left consistently discredits themselves through acts of immorality, scandals, hypocisy, "leaders" who are philanderers (clinton, edwards, "rev" jesse jackson, ETC.) and when the media catches on to it and talks about it for weeks at a time, I just smile and grab a bag of popcorn. Yes, these are individuals doing this, and not the democratic party as a whole, but there seems to be a pattern there with the left.

Sorry Mindia, but if anything these types of things are far more frequent from the closeted right-wingers trying to nail every tranny prostitute in every truck stop in America.

Thing is, most liberals don't care much what they do so we don't see these types of asinine posts when one makes the news every few weeks. A far bigger deal is always made of these immoral liberals because that's really the only card you have to play.

how can anyone really believe that this is a POLITICAL PARTY issue and not a HUMAN issue....

ROFL come on douchebag....


"ya know the dems do bad things and are generally naughtier as a whole than the pubs!"

good thing you're not a fanboi or anything, very "fair and balanced"

Kramer wrote:how can anyone really believe that this is a POLITICAL PARTY issue and not a HUMAN issue....

ROFL come on douchebag....


"ya know the dems do bad things and are generally naughtier as a whole than the pubs!"

good thing you're not a fanboi or anything, very "fair and balanced"

QFT, well cept that pubs are less human than dems (LOL)

Narrock wrote: My favorite laughable Obama statement is that Americans should learn Spanish and other foreign languages... when HE himself only knows English. hahaha What a tool.

i fail to see what is wrong with this. just because he doesn't know any foreign languages doesn't mean others shouldn't learn them. if anything, it just makes it clearer why he'd want others to do so--because he never did and it's a valuable skill.

ours is a nation of diverse population. there are bound to be various languages depending on where you are--wouldn't it be nice to be able to communicate all over? besides, learning more languages is good for your brain.

i wish i could learn italian. i also wish i had started foreign language lessons a lot sooner--children pick up language much more quickly than do adults, and each year i'm just getting further and further away from easily learning another language.

what's wrong with a little self-enrichment and reaching out to others who are different from us?

What's wrong with people coming to our country speaking the predominant language?

I have no issues with learning another language as an enrichment. But if you are doing it to speak to people living in your own country then it's just wrong.

ah this takes me back to linguistics @ school. newbies to the department would sometimes slip and say stuff like Martrae just said

so, why's it "just wrong"? there are other countries where the regional language is not the national or gov't language :shocker:

English is the demolect and politolect of this country... we completely wiped another dozen languages off the face of the planet when we colonized here and we're in arm's reach of the Spanish and French languages.... over time it's basically inevitable for them to encroach. English isn't that cool and not that many people want to learn it. If we're not willing to learn another language then it kind of just shows how selfish and stubborn we are if we expect them to have to learn ours. the amount of US travellers that don't learn the language of the place they're visiting and think it's easier to get a translator because we have this bizarre notion that everyone must speak English is really sad and pathetic. I don't think it gives us any right to complain about people coming here and using their regional dialect that don't want to learn any English. The foreign world could give two shits about the US (why do you think all foreign ppl learn British English?) and I think at least trying to act like intelligent people that are aware of foreign culture would be a nice gesture toward visiting foreigners since we basically expect the same whenever we go to their countries

It's so bogus to me to think it's wrong to need to learn another language. You should almost be required to have a second language by law. It'd be a much better investment of your time than worrying about the newest movies and TV shows, don't you think? Because learning a language isn't diminishing returns for your brain

We are not other countries. English is (or was...it's hard to tell anymore) the standard language here. Every other immigrant population that came to this country learned to speak the prevailing language. This shouldn't have changed.

If I moved to France, I'd expect to have to learn French. If I moved to Japan, I'd expect to speak Japanese. It's basic common sense.

As for your ridiculous accusations about what I think of education, I think you forget who you're talking to.

Gypsiyee wrote:oh my gracious Mindia, that has to be one of the most mis-informed, uneducated, mouth-frothing, fox news-fueled posts I've ever seen from you.

FAIL.

I took it straight out of the democratic party playbook, hun.

Martrae wrote:We are not other countries. English is (or was...it's hard to tell anymore) the standard language here. Every other immigrant population that came to this country learned to speak the prevailing language. This shouldn't have changed.

If I moved to France, I'd expect to have to learn French. If I moved to Japan, I'd expect to speak Japanese. It's basic common sense.

As for your ridiculous accusations about what I think of education, I think you forget who you're talking to.

How dare you Mart! How can you be so insensitive???

Martrae wrote:English is (or was...it's hard to tell anymore) the standard language here.

Well, no shit! I said that in the third line of my post

All I said was that you made a dumb comment ("But if you are doing it to speak to people living in your own country then it's just wrong.") because a) nobody ever brought that up, b) it's really really stupid, and c) it reminded me of college.

No one's talking about changing the national language. All Obama suggested was to learn another language and he cited Spanish specifically because it's the most useful language to learn for US citizens, as any linguist would tell you. If you don't want to get with the times and learn the language of the largest minority in the country then suit yourself. I don't care about what you do

yay drem just said all the stuff i wanted to say but am bad at verbalizing hehe . . . i learned all the same things as a linguistics major, and we used to go rounds debating the english as "official language" discussion.

Drem wrote:

Martrae wrote:English is (or was...it's hard to tell anymore) the standard language here.

Well, no shit! I said that in the third line of my post

All I said was that you made a dumb comment ("But if you are doing it to speak to people living in your own country then it's just wrong.") because a) nobody ever brought that up, b) it's really really stupid, and c) it reminded me of college.

No one's talking about changing the national language. All Obama suggested was to learn another language and he cited Spanish specifically because it's the most useful language to learn for US citizens, as any linguist would tell you. If you don't want to get with the times and learn the language of the largest minority in the country then suit yourself. I don't care about what you do

The point is... that Obama should be bilingual BEFORE suggesting that other people should. He loses credibility (again) when he says stupid shit like that.

I'm afraid I must disagree.

Not being able to do it yourself doesn't inhibit recognizing that it'd be a good idea in general. Indeed, if he DID, I bet you megabucks that the McCain campaign would be using that fact to paint him as an elitist, going "oh see, HE speaks one of them furriner languages, so he thinks YOU should too. What, english not good enough for him, like most of the country?"

/barf

-Arlos

Narrock wrote:

Drem wrote:

Martrae wrote:English is (or was...it's hard to tell anymore) the standard language here.

Well, no shit! I said that in the third line of my post

All I said was that you made a dumb comment ("But if you are doing it to speak to people living in your own country then it's just wrong.") because a) nobody ever brought that up, b) it's really really stupid, and c) it reminded me of college.

No one's talking about changing the national language. All Obama suggested was to learn another language and he cited Spanish specifically because it's the most useful language to learn for US citizens, as any linguist would tell you. If you don't want to get with the times and learn the language of the largest minority in the country then suit yourself. I don't care about what you do

The point is... that Obama should be bilingual BEFORE suggesting that other people should. He loses credibility (again) when he says stupid shit like that.

So if person X does not have attribute Y, person X cannot push for others to have attribute Y?

By your own logic, you need to have children before discussing matters of education.

However, you seem to be a perfect candidate to discuss the original topic.

Narrock wrote:Put on your thinking caps, and listen to the substance of what Obama says. Hard to do isn't it? That's because there is no substance to Obama's speeches.

Oh there is plenty of substance in his speeches. Nearly every speech I hear or read that comes from Obama has substance, true it might be buried within eloquent speech to stir feelings, but in the end it's pretty clear where he wants to take this country, and frankly to say he doesn't speak substance is to ignore the very frightening realities of what he says, proposes or hints at. Let me give you an example.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php

About halfway through the speech:

The other day, we learned that Exxon Mobil made nearly $12 billion last quarter. To put it another way, they made $1,500 every second. That's more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank of gas. And Senator McCain actually wants to give oil companies like Exxon another $4 billion in tax cuts. Well, I don't think we should be giving tax breaks to oil companies that are doing better than ever at a time when you're struggling more than ever. It's time to use some of their record profits to help you pay record prices by putting a $1,000 emergency energy rebate in the pockets of working families.

The other day I caught part of a speech were he was talking about going after oil companies for price gouging. In around 30 investigations looking for price gouging the last several decades, the finding are the same, that rising gas prices are not the product of collusion or price fixing, but that of the market. In the above quote he's talking about the concept of a windfall tax, something that failed to pass congress a few years ago, but the plan as it's described sure looks the same.

First of all I take issue with the general idea of a "windfall profit tax". The very concept is that government determines that profit was excessive and levies and additional tax on the profits. The devil here is in the details. I would submit that you can not institute a windfall profits tax without establishing a threshold as to when profit becomes "windfall". To give government discretion to decide a profit was excessive without some hard quantitative lends its self to subjectivity that has a high propensity to evolve into something tyranical. In other words we can't just let congress decide willy nilly when a number is too large, we already have a tax system that empowers government by allowing it to be manipulated to reward some behavior and groups and punish others, the last thing we need is to give government greater power to enforce via taxation what it can not legally accomplish through legislation. Now Obama doesn't speak to this, and at best case he has some formula in mind... at worst he wants to give government nearly uncontrollable power to fleece businesses (and potentially individuals). Do we know for sure what he has in mind in this regard? Nope but either way it's bad news.

Best case scenario he has some number in mind that constitutes excessive profit, and we know that oil companies are over that number. So where exactly is that line, what magic number makes that determination? Exxon Mobil is a huge company, it's total profit expressed in dollars will naturally dwarf the profits of many small businesses, and even larger companies, so logically one can not take only the reported profit into account, but must relate it to the companies profit margin. Exxon's profit margin hovered around 10 percent last year, and as of the quarterly postings in July of this year it is around 8 percent, which is about average for oil companies. Now when you contrast this with the average profit margins of other industries you end up with oil companies falling somewhere around 60th. There are quite a few industries that make better profit margins then Exxon. That makes for a whole lot of industries and companies who are making excessive profits. Does Obama intend to go after them with windfall taxes as well? I doubt it, because what this is all really about is not excessive profit, but about government getting a larger bank roll to fund various activities he proposes at home and abroad. Never mind that Exxon has already paid more in taxes in almost the last decade then it's made in profits, government now needs a bigger piece of that pie.

Of course this doesn't really affect the average joe if some major oil company gets tapped does it? Newsflash this just in, companies don't pay taxes, they pass that cost on to the consumer. Exxon, and other oil companies aren't going to change their already mediocre profit margin to compensate, their employees will want raises, their stockholders want dividends. What will change the tax cost basis for their business model which will directly relate to the price at the pump. If you doubt that for a second, look at Britian who's pump price is nearly double our own (yes in USD), and it is directly related to government taxation.

for the record i think tax rebates are a pretty terrible idea for a variety of reasons, no matter which side of the aisle is offering them