Sunday open thread
Busy with family. Talk amongst yourselves.
Bonus fun fact: This week’s NYT political best seller list is still topped by conservatives/libertarians:
POLI-BOOKS BEST SELLER LIST
Based on sales for weeks ending Dec. 26 through Jan. 16, 2010
1. Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin. (Harper/HarperCollins, $28.99.) A memoir by the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate.
4. Arguing With Idiots, written and edited by Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe and others. (Mercury Radio Arts/Threshold Editions, $29.99.) Making the case against big government.
10. Liberty And Tyranny, by Mark R. Levin. (Threshold Editions, $25.) A conservative manifesto from a talk-show host and president of Landmark Legal Foundation.
14. Culture Of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. (Regnery, $27.95.) President Obama and what the conservative author claims is his team of tax cheats, petty crooks, influence peddlers and Wall Street cronies.
Snort: “And what the conservative author claims…”
***
Quick links…
Purported bin Laden audio tape claims credit for Flight 253 bombing attempt.
White House Confident Senate Will OK Bernanke
J.D. Hayworth to take on McCain (much more on this to come).
Miracle: Man Rescued Alive After Haiti Calls Off Searches
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Will Jack Lew please report to the Obama “Truth Team” desk now?; Update: Obama Budget Fail
February 13, 2012 10:57 AM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsVideo: Mr. America
February 13, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
26 CommentsNon-shocker of the morning: Soros monkeys coordinate with Democrats
February 13, 2012 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
72 CommentsGreece Erupts After Vote for Austerity Measures to Secure Another Bailout
February 12, 2012 10:19 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
72 CommentsUS State Department Expands Travel Warning for Mexico
February 11, 2012 03:29 PM by Doug Powers
43 Comments
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 CommentsL.A. Board of Supervisors Impose $1,000 Fine for Having Fun on the Beach
February 9, 2012 04:42 PM by Doug Powers
77 Comments
Categories: Politics
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesHot Air
» GOP budget leaders: The president’s fourth straight budget flop underscores need for reformPundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'd
It is a moot point now because they said they would not push through legislation because politically it would add gas on the fire.
But basically neither of us are ‘right’. This is why we have laws and lawyers. This would be decided in a court of law.
I would argue you can either appoint a senator or elect one. I would put more weight in an elected senator (in today’s time) than an appointed senator. This case was both. There is an elected senator and an appointed senator for the seat for the junior senator from MA.
Under normal circumstances, Kennedy would have finished his term. His term would end when it ended, not when someone else was sworn in (after an election).
There is a difference between regular elections and special elections. I think your failure to recognize the nuances in the differences between the two causes you to misunderstand Kirk’s role in the senate.
Again, neither of us are right or wrong. It would have been decided in the supreme court, but it is a moot point now since even D’s now realize how politically poisonous their ‘victory’ in passing health care legislation that way would be.
And there were plenty of people saying they were going to ram it through anyway. Reid himself said that Kirk maintained all his voting rights. Of course he says that, but the sole reason for appointing Kirk in the fist place was so they could have the 60th vote for health care.
If the law had been followed rather than changed, then MA would not have had a vote until the new senator is sworn in. . . and they wouldn’t have had the Dec shenanigans until after the special election.
zzzz you argue as though our government can not exist without two senators from each state. Continuity of government does not depend on whether or not MA has two votes in the senate.
The Minnesota election is a perfect example. Coleman was the senator until his term ended. Then they didn’t have another vote until after the election was certified. There was never more than one person speaking for the people of MN in one senate seat.
Kirk has an indefinite term as an appointed senator filling a seat instead of someone who was elected but not yet sworn in.
It’s a fascinating legal case, but I don’t see how the appointed senator can cast a vote after the special election even if the winner of the election can’t vote yet.
One vote in the senate isn’t usually so meaningful so it wouldn’t matter. But this health care legislation was as far left as they could get it. They couldn’t spare the vote. That’s the only reason it is important. 99 votes in the senate should be plenty to pass solid legislation.
Not to mention that the “Dec shenanigans” may have just tipped the scale away from the Dems – their plan backfired, providing additional momentum to Scott Brown’s campaign, by touching off the firestorm of support that carried him right into office. They overplayed their hand big time.
The Warrior song….
“Come to the nightmare
Come to me…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs6a0ORdQU&feature=player_embedded
Go Team America!!!
Chief you made my day.
This was even better than watching Favre choke yet again. You wanted him Vikes. You got him!
GO PACK!
No.
Will you address the question I asked you in post #157?
Possibly I am misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that companies should be allowed to drill when ever and where ever they want?
What is the salient difference, exactly?
Why? Have you looked at the law which put Kirk in office? It says Kirk serves until a successor is “qualified.” Your distinctions between “special” and “regular” elections is a meaningless red herring. It has no import with respect to the law of Massachusetts, which despite your grievances with how it was passed, was without a doubt the law of the law of the state when Brown was elected.
So…What does “qualified” mean in this context? And what is the basis for your definition?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yf9k7mn
Fox News is Hiring!
Actually, Flyman, Favre acquitted himself quite well today. Unfortunately the runners and receivers were all butterfingers – if they hadn’t been, the Vikes would’ve been up by at least 2 touchdowns.
Being totally irrelevant non-contenders they had no place to “go” other than home, sitting in front of their TVs to watch their betters play.
i have to try this. it is an open thread. any mm fans looking for a chef’s helper in los angeles county?
…more like for people whose minds are so open their brains fell out.
Here goes:
Right out of the gate he is not making any sense. Neither “New Atheists” nor “physicists” universally accept String Theory, so we can just ignore the rest of this section.
That is correct, and it’s only incomprehensible “Twilight Zone” to those ignorant of mathematics (which is strange because Berlinski is supposed to be a mathematician, obviously he’s rather good at compartmentalizing.) In any case, the observable universe is clearly finite, so it’s really kind of a moot point. Next…
That’s it. I am stopping there. How many times must this idiocy be vomited? How completely obtuse does a person have to be to not be able to understand the behavior of social animals and how such social traits can be selected for?
OK, I’m done. I’ll check back tomorrow.
OK, one last thing:
Oh for goodness sake! Evolution doesn’t mention anything about god either! How can this braying idiot understand and accept relativity and quantum mechanics but evolution escapes him? *sigh*
Two non-games today. Dome teams should be relegated to their own league where they play football for three quarters and roller derby the last quarter.
Baseball in domes should be similarly banned.
I’ll take Bud Grant and a gloveless ball boy on a 10 degree day. THAT IS WHEN I LOVED THE VIKINGS!
And now the soap opera, “Will I Retire?” begins………again. Lucky you Peep!
Nope. I have not failed to recognize the nuances. Obviously the law (or, how the situation should be handled) is unclear, otherwise you would not have suggested that the SCOTUS become involved.
Moreover it is the nuances involved with a regular election, special elections, and appointments.
Can we agree that MA really screwed up?
Nope. Those things happen concurrently.
Think Presidential swearing in. And yes, the Veep is sworn in first, all in an effort to maintain continuity. When each Pres and Veep are sworn in, the previous Pres and Veep are no longer Pres and Veep.
Same thing for the Congress.
Flyover I suggest you run the numbers for what a 90 year old paid in who retired in 1975. I don’t mind the criticism.
More “red meat” for ya, ZA.
Hellyeah! Now that was football.
Well, to be honest Flyman, the Vikes other QB – TJack – isn’t quite ready for prime time, so if Favre is still poking around next season and plays as well as he did season, I expect the owners might be interested. But he’s def not the “QB of the future” for the team.
Like I said, the link was for “open minds.” Of course, an “open mind” implies you have a mind to begin with.
You know, zero, I am actually going to have to go with WE82 on this one. I mean, after all, to accept this premise…
…is to accept that somewhere out there, there is an alternate universe in which WarEagle is a rational, sentient being who knew the touch of a woman before his fortieth birthday.
Such absurdities do not stand the scrutiny of scientific inquiry.
Zero – Welcome back! Long time no nonsense.
Must be an honor to have someone write a book about you, zeroinductivereason.
You know full well you convince no one on this site and post your drivel here only to try to pi$$ off good Christians. Please consider making a cogent point some time that warrants a response. Meanwhile, put a pseudo intellectual sock in it bone head.
Hope you had a merry CHRISTmas and nice new year. May God bless you and your family always!
Well, it is pretty clear that in this universe Chappy and ZeroIntellect are the village idiots from Mink and Pinsk. That isn’t difficult to accept in the least…
Flyman & Peep – Deja vu. As I recall Favre’s last game for the Pack was the playoff against the Giants wherein he lobbed up an easy interception in the last minute then lost in overtime. Plays like a genius till the pressure is on. Still have to respect the guy for a brilliant career, but the Vikes like the Pack 2 years ago need a new man.
Actually, it seems he does a far better job of pissing off the bad ones.
It is good to know that two emotionally, morally and intellectually stunted denizens of the web have found each other and take so much amusement from their lame posts.
Chappy and ZeroEverything were made for each other kind of like Barney Frank and Steve Gobie…
Of course, lest we forget, at one point, Kepler’s laws and plate tectonics were also “concoctions” that eliminated from God his power to cause eclipses and earthquakes.
Actually, I take approximately 213 times more pleasure out of your lame posts WarEagle.
So…I guess, according to you, it’s about even.
Well, Chappy, I confess I derive little pleasure from your posts.
But you do make a good caricature of a Marxist loser. Those are traits you share with Obama.
This is just bizarre and even less worthy of response than zero’s silly diatribe. And I find it difficult to express the utter lack of interest I have re your evaluation of what constitutes a good or bad Christian.
WE82 – May I impose on you to press on taking out the garbage? I need some sleep and something here is making me a bit nauseous.
Nite all.
And yet you are drawn back to them time and time again. Kind of like the stereotypical gay evangelical Christian in denial.
Anything you want to tell, us WarEagle? Don’t be afraid. This is a safe zone.
I am sure you know all about “denial,” Chappy. I suspect your wife knows about it as well by this point.
Since this is a “safe zone” I’ll be glad to tell you that you can get help for your perversions. It is possible that even you can be cured. And the moose in Upstate New York will finally be able to relex too…
Your lack of understanding does not equal “bizarre,” swede.
The problem with that, Swede, is that it doesn’t hold up in respect to this playoff game. Two Minnesota fumbles in the red zone led to the outcome of this game. In this case, it really just all boiled down to who won the OT coin toss. It was a back & forth point-for-point game throughout. Both teams sucked in this game, but the Saints just sucked a little less than the Vikes.
It’ll be interesting to see if NO can manage a Superbowl win.
Hello from the Great State of Alaska where I am reporting from the wilderness many miles from civilization (and it is still Sunday)!
I have half a bag of Jolly Time Popcorn and an 18 pack of Bud ($32), stashed away for Wednesday’s SOTU. I will try and refrain from drinking games but something tells me I will put a pretty good dent in that 18 pack on Wednesday.
Chap:
Well, yes, but you can take solace in the fact that there are also an infinite number of mind-numbingly stupid (even more so than normal) versions of WE82.
WE82 / swede:
As expected, nothing but invective and ad hominem.
You would know:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470117737
…you mean other than a response that involves lame insults and threats to try and get me banned? You should just go write MM an email again.
“Will you address the question I asked you in post #157?”
I clearly did already.
“stereotypical gay evangelical Christian”
There are enough gay evangelical Christians that are similar enough so as to have a stereotype?
Sorry zy but you are inconsistent. Applying your definition or qualifications as to why social security is socialism one would have to consider the military is then also socialism.
You are correct however the military is not. Neither is social security. Medicare bumps up against it but probably not purely socialism as folks have paid into medicare as an insurance type policy their whole lives.
Italy disaster expert slams U.S. response to Haiti
And how many damned aircraft carriers does Italy have providing relief? When an if we can ever rid ourselves of this Citizen of the World President and the Bush dynasty we need a great separation from Europe. NATO should have been abandoned when the Berlin Wall came down.
Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy’s civil protection service slams us for sending 13,000 soldiers “untrained in relief efforts” to Haiti. What country has enough people trained in relief for a disaster of this magnitude? If Italy does please replace our people soonest Son of Mussolini. The next time Italy, or all of Europe, gets their tit in a ringer please call Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for help.
The Hell with Europe.
I clearly missed it, please tell me in which post # you addressed the question, “Possibly I am misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that companies should be allowed to drill when ever and where ever they want?”
Yes. The vitriol with which one denounces homosexuality and homosexuals is usually directly proportionate to the chances that they are themselves one.
See, e.g., Haggard, Barnes, David Dreier…
Remember, all the smart people from Europe emigrated to America.
Constitutionally, drilling should be regulated by the states. Each state would be in in charge of its own territory. Waterways shared between states can be governed by interstate compact (which are formed with the approval of Congress according to Article I, Section 10).
How so? Please explain.
I have said Social(ism) Security is socialism because people can get more out of it than they put in. I have said the military is not socialism.
Where is the inconsistentcy?
You are welcome to throw out an assertion, however my hope is that you back it up with proof, an example, or a deconstruction of my argument.
And yes, medicare is also socialism because people will more than likely get more out of it than they put in.
I am OK with that.
But, the issue remains, whether it is the States or Federal Government, that controls access to natural resources, it is not a free market. Those who wish to withdraw resources will still have to subject themselves to some sort of regulation. Yes, or no?
Think of it terms of building codes, zoning and various related regulations. Yep, you own your property in the suburbs on a nice cul-de-sac, but could you erect a twenty story office tower there?
You just can’t erect a derrick where ever and when ever you want. You can’t just build an office tower where ever and when ever you like, even if you own the property. And, some of the property where the drilling takes is on public land.
No free market. Ummm, modified free market, yes.
Hmmm. All the usual suspects playing all the usual roles.
Nope. Nothing to see here.
And if one doesn’t pay-in/contribute to social security, one cannot take out/receive its benefits through the normal route – just ask an elderly person who has been denied SS benefits because they lack the necessary quarterly credits – that’s not socialism!
Also unlike socialism, SS is career dependent: many careers-positions have their retirement systems and do not collect SS taxes. If SS were a socialist program there would be no exceptions – all career fields would contribute to it.
I see they finally hung “Chemical Ali”. Some good news this am.
By that definition any sort of savings would be socialism, and any sort of annuity would be socialism.
That is nonsense.
So I take you also judge the quality of apples by the first bad one you pull out of the basket? Yeesh!!
True enough, yet on the last play of regulation Favre had some open field in front of him, and only needed to get back 5 or 6 yards for a good shot at the win. Instead, he tossed into coverage for an easy interception.
I am an eternal Cheesehead, and have nothing but the highest respect for Favre. Last night was just one reason. He is an old timer and was slammed hard nine times. Obviously in serious pain he got up and made some brilliant plays. As far as skill, tenacity, passion, sportsmanship, character, etc. he is hard to match. But I think Brett’s glory days are past and it’s time for the Vikes to build someone for the future.
Oops! Take it
zyzzyg:
The free market is not an absolute. I do believe in law and order. Regulations are necessary to a stable and free society, but the danger comes when laws multiply like rabbits.
“Some sort of regulation” is incredibly vague and covers way too much territory. Ultimately, a state may regulate within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and its own constitution. If the locals want a hyper-intrusive state, then they have to live with that. If they want a libertarian’s paradise, then ditto for them.
There is a huge difference between the federal govt dictating resource policy (unconstitutionally) and each state regulating its own. Let the people decide via their legislatures. Government should be as small and as local as possible.
Just because I believe that federal government intrusion is unwarranted, unnecessary, unconstitutional, and often offensive does not mean that I don’t believe in laws.
By the way, I DON’T believe in building codes as they are currently practiced (that is, they should be voluntary for homeowners doing work on their own homes, but mandatory for builders and professional remodelers). I also don’t believe in mandatory licensing for any field (except medical). Voluntary licensing is fine. The caveat is that there should be disclosure (“I am not a licensed _______”) w/ penalties of purjury).
If I’m rambling, misspelling, or misunderstood anything you said, then I apologise. I’m exhausted – I just got off work.
I am not judging all evangelicals. Just the hypocritical closeted gay ones.
Social(ism) Security is not an annuity. Funds collected for Social(ism) Security is not saved and invested. [Note: And, that is part of the problem.]
Can an individual take out more than they put into Social(ism) Security? Yes, or no?
No worries. Not my style to take anyone to task for such things. Get some rest and maybe have an adult beverage.
Bottomline, there is no ‘absolutely’ free market in extracting resources from the earth because of government intrusion on mutiple levels (Fed, State, or local). Yes, or no?
Once again, Chappy “knows everything about everything!” It is amazing! If he didn’t believe in his own delusional fantasies about his own “genius” it might be funny.
I don’t think I have ever met someone so convinced of his own omniscience.
There have been few people with so much to be humble about and at the same time utterly lacking in humility.
Maybe Chappy IS Obama…
Not quite, grasshopper. It’s EVIL genius. You really need the evil part for full impact.
Oh, I don’t doubt the “evil” part. And I truly believe you believe in the “genius” part but I don’t think anybody else but your sidekick Igor does.
I think, by now, everyone knows you are the stereotypical left-wing, pseudo-elitist, ambulance-chasing moonbat…
zyzzyg:
By your strict definition, then I don’t think anything short of anarcho-libertarianism could be considered a “free” market. Therefore, by that standard of judgement, there is no “absolutely” free market anywhere.
I think we’re dealing with theoretical concepts here – what a physicist would call “ideal” (such as an ideal gas or an ideal rope).
The problem comes with the differences between the ideal version of something and the real. Theoretical models can and should predict behaviors of their real versions, but are never perfect.
The short answer: “no.”
Of course, there is always the black market.
Of course.
My point was that just because you get more out of something than you put in does not mean it is socialism.
Many people think SS is a savings/annuity program. It has a great deal of similarity.
If social security was run as a compulsory savings and annuity program of a fixed percentage of the first x number of dollars of a worker’s income, then it would not be socialism at all. You still might not like the law, since it reduces individual choice, but it wouldn’t be socialism.
It would be a limited regulation making it a requirement to prepare for retirement so society wouldn’t end up having to take care of its ‘irresponsible’ members when they become too old to work.
We know that is what happens when a society does not have something like SS. We have to take care of them directly out of the public treasury, or we have to watch the numbers of starving old folks overwhelm our charities during economic downturns.
Social security is actually a good idea if properly written. It can be a reasonable free market answer to demands for socialism.
The same general concept can be applied to disability and health care, but it is more complicated in those cases, and so even more easily subject to the kind of corrupting influence of government we see in Social Security.
Social inSecurity is a ponzi scheme. I will never see a dime of what I am paying in now.
I wouldn’t mind it as much if people could actually own their accounts, but you don’t.
You boomers enjoy your benefits. Gens X and Y won’t get to do so.
Thank you for answering the question.
Well, that is partly how I define socialism. Who said (paraphrasing), “each according to their needs”. If you need more than you put into the pot, and get it, then that is socialism.
Snark alert -
Some people think the Loch Ness Monster is real. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Thinking something does not make it true.
Did you say, ‘if’? Did you say, ‘then it would not be socialism’? Ummm, then it is socialism.
Are you suggesting society take care of irresponsible people? Ummm, that is socialism.
More socialism.
OK. Though as written, it is socialism.
Still socialism, with or without the corruption.
You appear to be dodging my point.
I have already said I am not arguing with you about the current program being socialistic (it is not pure socialism, since what you put in makes a difference as to what you get out). I am pointing out the same concept can be done without being socialism.
Understanding that reality is absolutely critical when it comes to the politics necessary to fix the problem.
Ranting about social security being socialism wins no elections. It never will. It will lose them all. Forever.
In fact, every time some clown calls it socialism they are promoting socialism (since it is a wildly popular program/concept) when the truth is that everything that is wrong with social security is the socialism in it.
Fixing social security so that it is a savings/annuity program might become politically doable.
And to prove how “scientific” scientists have become take a gander at the following:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7068765/The-search-for-aliens-should-start-on-Earth-not-outer-space-says-scientist.html
If you won’t believe the truth you will believe anything…
I am hardly dodging anything. I have cut and pasted your words and addressed everything you wrote.
You on the other hand, have not.
See my post #256. You cut and pasted, and then only addressed part of it, in your post #262. You could have cut and pasted, and addressed the rest of that post, with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
No worries. You took the long way round to ‘yes’.
test for pure