There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, Who owns the oil? You begin to ask the question, Who owns the iron ore? You begin to ask the question, Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water? These are questions that must be asked.Maybe we couldn't answer the question until now. Before, if you were Black, Asian, Latin, any kind of non-white group, then you didn't count in the USA. You were invisible. You had to bow down to the Great White Father, and probably, even then, you didn't count. However, today, we have an American identity that is inclusive of those of us who were previously excluded. Sure we're still struggling with that-- some people, like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan are pissed about it. But everyone else is okay with it.
Link
So Tiabbi is a teabagger?Of course, anyone who disagrees with his economic and financial policies is a right-wing loon. Duh.
So, Matt Tiabbi -- what the fuck have you done to fix the situation?What do you think he should have done that he didn't?
Remember, Obama's platform wasn't that he was going to fix economic mess, foreign policy woes, etc., it was that we were. Except we bailed out. Whoops.WTF does that even mean? How exactly could "we" fix a credit crunch brought on by giant financial companies hording capital in order to keep from going bankrupt because they owned a bunch of mortgage derivatives that were impossible to sell, thereby destroying their balance sheets?
Really, because it seems to me that what he is doing is trying to bring the detainees to the US for trial or to find a country to release them to if they don't want to go to their home countries. -- IronmouthSrsly?
Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.Could you at least try being honest, as opposed to cherry picking things that back up your point and ignoring things that don't? He explicitly said we need to keep people detained without trials or even military commissions. This is not in any way disputed. In fact I'm pretty sure you defended that policy in the past and even said that KSM could never be prosecuted.
I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. -- Barack Obama, May 21 2009
I do find your statements on Israel to be interesting--perhaps he has changed his position on settlements, except for I FULLY FUCKING SUPPORT STOPPING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA IMMEDIATELY. THIS IS THE DEFAULT LEFT-WING POSITION IN THIS COUNTRY. Never had you pegged for a big supporter of Israel, Delmoi, but I guess I can be surprised.. -- IronmouthWell, I had intended to point out I was glad he was doing it and that it was a good thing, but re-reading my comment I guess that's not in there.
I seem to recall him saying that he wouldn't prosecute the past administration, and the state secrets thing seems like an extension of that promise to me. I don't like it, but it is consistent with what he said. -- breathNo, what he said was, explicitly, that he was opposed to the way the bush used the states secrets privilege to try to kill lawsuits. Again, he is doing exactly what he criticized bush for. There's no need to try to "extend" his other statements. And by the way, do you have any citations for him saying he wouldn't prosecute the bush administration? I don't think he ever said that specifically before the election. What I remember him saying was something like "No one is above the law, but we need to look forward, not back". Obviously those two things are somewhat at odds, but clearly he chose the latter over the former.
TK: I have said this before, and I'll say it again: Anyone that the Democrats run against Bush, even the appalling Joe Lieberman, should be a candidate around whom every progressive person in the United States who cares about the country's future and the future of the world rallies.Anyone who thinks Joe Lieberman would have made a good president isn't really worth listening too. The only difference between him and bush is that we would have been fighting a war in Iran too.
Taibbi lost me at this: Much like Alan Greenspan, a staggeringly incompetent economic forecaster who was worshipped by four decades of politicians because he once dated Barbara Walters.Except that he's kind of right about that. Greenspan wash worshipped during the 90s. While not necessarily because he dated barbara walters (though that was a sign of how well connected and accepted he was as part of the "Village" of DC media and society), he did end up revealing that this reputation was undeserved: by 2001, he was claiming that we were in big danger of "paying off the public debt too fast" because he was shilling for GW Bush's tax cuts, and by 2009 he was expressing his surprise and befuddlement that the finance sector did not self-regulate itself to avoid disaster.
Okay to be fair. It is true that I can't really blame Obama for the specific citigroup deal that occurred during the campaign/transition period. But the idea that there was a "broad consensus" about TARP is only true if you only look at elites. Remember, the bailout actually failed the first time it was voted on in congress because the republicans knew it was political poison going right into an election. The average person was definitely against it, and there were lots of alternative proposals out there: Such as taking over the banks, or letting them go bankrupt naturally as proposed by Ron Paul (I think this would have been a bad idea, because that could take years and years to play out).
Huh? Ok let me slow down here and see what we have. So the fact that Obama was "paying attention" while someone else was president means Obama is responsible?
OK part 2. Obama and McCain were present at the Citigroup bailout negotiations in mid-November 2008? Again, very confused. If you are talking about TARP, Elizabeth Warren chaired the oversight panel which found that “there is broad consensus that the TARP was an important part of a broader government strategy that stabilized the U.S. financial system by renewing the flow of credit and averting a more acute crisis.” Elizabeth Warren is the lefty-of-lefties Bankruptcy Law professor at Harvard. You don't get more left than her. Like it or not, TARP worked. It was necessary. We can say it sucked that it had to be done, but there's nobody who knows anything about the reality of it that's saying that it didn't work.-- Ironmouth
A lot of this has to do with the easy way this gets spun. The "bankers" (for those of you scoring at home, read "Jews") -- IronmouthCompare and contrast:
I FULLY FUCKING SUPPORT STOPPING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA IMMEDIATELY. -- IronmouthThat's enough to get called an anti-semite by the Neocons and other hard-core pro-Isreal people. Maybe in this case they're right and deep down you hate jews and are just projecting your anti-Semitic on others?
A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer...People are asking who put this in the bill. The only person who could put this in the bill is Harry Reid. (via)
Adding to the puzzle, the new language was quietly tucked away in a clause in the bill still captioned “No lifetime or annual limits.”
« Older Akinator... | If there's one genre you have ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Ironmouth at 9:47 PM on December 10, 2009