lostfan

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) In other news... I love that it's the NYP and not Huffpo or Salon.

I hate to be baited into the "you do it too" game but conservatives do that demonizing s*** all the time. They're doing it right now to a pretty extreme degree.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) Am i the only one that remembers the 90s? Just what I was going to type. And I didn't even pay attention to politics in the 90s.

Rio's murder rate makes Chicago look like a hippie commune.

I want to cancel my Directv and get Verizon FIOS but I don't feel like going through the whole charade of them trying to get me to stay. I need to make up a lie, like I got fired or something.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 08:06 AM) Dems have the open tent and some opposing viewpoints are allowed - also means they can't do solid coalitions as well as the GOP. GOP has become racked-in walk-the-line-or-else, which means they can move better as a full group on issues, but it also means they automatically end up guttered in the far wing of their party, as we see now. Its the good and bad of each. This is what I was saying except I was more negative.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 02:21 AM) It just can't be that the "blue dogs" realize they are GONE as a result of the PEOPLE speaking up, can it? It has to be 100% about the lobbyists and cronisim and how they're a bunch of p*****s now because they're not going far enough. It cracks me up that when people actually rise up about an issue that's against liberal idealism, it's everything in the world as to why except that people tend to be right of center and don't want their government messing with their lives more then they already are. Why, that CANNOT happen, can it? That's a pretty dramatic oversimplification of what I just said.

What do you mean? They absolutely are. They just can't get the votes to do it because they're a pretty undisciplined coalition and there is a segment of their party that got bought off by the lobbyists. edit: "they" means the president, the party leadership, and the liberal base.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 10:44 PM) Reid is a little b**** then. Pretty much.

There was no MAJORITY of anything because that makes it sound like people's opinions are black and white. There's black, there's white, there's many shades of gray, there's a couple of purples and blues in there too. Then there are people that just don't know what they're talking about.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 08:29 PM) Swisher freed up money to pay Dayan Viciedo. Dayan Viciedo is a much, much, much better prospect than anyone traded in the first deal, and Dayan Viciedo's trade value alone is worth much, much, much more than Nick Swisher. So, we won. PLEASE let this topic die. I feel like curb-stomping kittens yet I keep coming back for more.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) Don't give money to the DNC, give money to any primary challenger for these folks. In many of these places though they're from purple areas, where it's unlikely a dyed-in-the-wool progressive type gets elected. That's the double-edged sword.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 05:13 PM) A bunch of right-center Democrats were elected last round. That's why I laughed when people were ranting about "ZOMG! Obama and Pelosi are going to shove ultra-lib down our throats!" It was never going to happen because of two reasons: the Democrats are huge p*****s and many Democrats are not liberals. It's funny cuz I remember us all having a conversation on here about 6, 8 months ago about how there were no sub-groups within the 2 parties anymore. I guess we were wrong, they're alive and well. The problem isn't that the parties have too much influence, it's that the lobbyists openly run Washington and write the legislation that comes out on terms favorable to them. Last week a GOP senator asked for a delay on the vote for 72 hours so the insurance lobbyists could read it. lol. Well he didn't say "lobbyists" but that is basically who he was talking about. He should have said "proofread" or "figure out whether the profits we're giving them are acceptable."

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) look at the dem senators opposing the PO, and look whose funding them. Like Nelson

This article is a little stale but it's a commentary on the performance of TARP: http://www.newsweek.com/id/214096 Basically the capital investment part of it is probably going to turn a profit as was hoped for. The rest of it (loans to AIG, GM) is more likely to end up in a black hole.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) Dems are a bunch of inept douche bags. Seriously they are. And they try to blame the Republicans for blowing it when they have a supermajority.

That really shouldn't take that long, it takes me a couple of hours to back up and it takes me about as long to restore it. Then again 8 GB of RAM so... yeah. I didn't think it'd affect it that much.

It would have to be a sustained, all-out assault over a pretty decent period of time.

What format are you transferring it from? Over IDE cables? USB 2.0?

And if our currency collapses then labor here would become cheaper than there (what I meant by the yuan appreciating, but I guess that was the wrong way to say it), plus we wouldn't be able to buy all of their cheap exports.

So yeah that's what I think I was getting at, why would they want to yank the rug out from under the dollar? They would lose a ton of money. Is that just them trying to get our government to spend responsibly?

I'm not articulate enough in economics to explain what I meant any better than I just tried to. I suppose, though, that since China can control their labor/wages etc. that they could do that under other circumstances too. Wouldn't a "basket" of currencies need a significant amount of USD?

Question for someone more economically literate than me that I just thought of. If right now China is keeping their currency artificially low to keep their exports up, and they are loaning us billions and complaining about the amount of debt we have, let's say the dollar gets replaced by something else today. Granted there is nothing to replace it as the global reserve currency but let's just say for the sake of argument there is. Wouldn't this cause the yuan to go up, and make labor in the United States cheaper? Kind of the opposite of what China wants? So why would they want to change it?

I bet if President Obama came out right now and said drinking 8 to 10 cups of water a day was the best way to stay healthy, some random Republican would immediately denounce this plan as a socialist plot to sabotage the soft drink industry. Beck would then lead a march on Washington where people will pour out bottles of water and drink Coke.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) I have to paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, who brought up a brilliant point. The most disgusting part of their misguidance, is that they are implying that the problem with Hitler wasn't his murder of millions of Jews, or his starting a world war, but his ECONOMIC POLICIES were what was wrong with him. Yeah that's seriously f***ing retarded.