Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The debt ceiling thing isn't exactly an issue that just came up in the last 2 weeks. Ditto intelligence reform. As it is, the mandate might be described more as "anything but Kerry", not "anything Rove wants", so I'm comfy with further debate on the intelligence reforms.

I saw Frist entirely disclaim the tax return thing ("nobody is going to defend this" or something), so no problem there... though I wouldn't mind finding out who put that in.

The intelligence bill has a majority supporting it but NOT a majority of Republicans. If it went up for a vote, it would be passed.

What's the thing about crime and criminals, seriously (not a trap)?

Tom DeLay.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Heh, heh. Feels a little Chile around here!"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A lot of people who are pretty knowledgeable on the subject have argued to me recently that the deficit doesn't matter. I usually argue back, "But what if they stop loaning to us on favorable terms?" The reply is "Who else will they loan to? We own the fucking bank. We ARE the lending market." I usually slink away without a response at that point, bitching under my breath about why I should not have cheated through Global Economics 101.

Are those people mad? I'm not interested enough in the subject to google it. Give me an easy answer and don't bore me.

These are the same people who think the gov't should just print more money to pay off the debt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
FWIW... I spoke with a GOP friend in DC yesterday. She usually gives me damn good info. I ran my "Arlen is purposefully making himself a lightning rod for the flack bush will get from conservatives when he does not appoint whacko right wing judges to the bench" theory past her. Her reply - "No shit, thats common knowledge. You need me to validate that theory. Its fucking accepted down here as fact." She went on to explain to me that the conventional wisdom in DC is that Bush is not going to go terrifically hard right on a lot of social issues because the GOP thinks its better to keep the social right wing rubes voting by giving them something to struggle toward than actually giving them spoils. And the GOP doesn't want to lose moderates. She believes Bush will give the social right wingers some crumbs on minor social issues, but will focus mainly on his economic agenda and the war on terror.

In his first term, Bush was largely content to turn matters judicial over to the social conservatives -- and you got Attorney General Ashcroft and a bunch of judicial appointments designed to please those folks you describe as rubes. I believe this is why the administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is making such noise about the filibustering of his appointments -- they don't really care, but they know that part of their base does, and they deliver to those folks by fighting the fight. But why would this change in a second term? Do you think Bush is going get more moderate in his judicial appointments? I don't see it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In his first term, Bush was largely content to turn matters judicial over to the social conservatives -- and you got Attorney General Ashcroft and a bunch of judicial appointments designed to please those folks you describe as rubes. I believe this is why the administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is making such noise about the filibustering of his appointments -- they don't really care, but they know that part of their base does, and they deliver to those folks by fighting the fight. But why would this change in a second term? Do you think Bush is going get more moderate in his judicial appointments? I don't see it.

Hey, I'm just citing someone's knowledgeable take on matters. Could be wrong. I agree with it. I think Rove wants to create a dynasty, and you don't do that by inflicting wild policies on the populous.

It gives me a blue veiner to think Bush might turn out to be the Rockefeller Republican I voted for in 2000. You're insanely cruel to dash my hopes, you mean prick. Let a man have some hope this holiday season.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You know, for a group of people with a mandate, the last two weeks can't really be described as an overwhelming Republican success, can they?

We're waiting for all the recounts to be exhausted, just in case.

Oh, and good news! I convinced them to leave homosexuals alone. Turns out they just really want to mess with people who are "faggy." WTTW SS.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Heh, heh. Feels a little Chile around here!"

Very nice.

In other Latin American news, I came across this summary of the recent Korean/Argentinian trade talks [to those not following it, Korea & Argentina have been negotiating a $30mil line of credit for Argentina to buy Korean stuff. Biz as usual for Korea, but will be the first new credit Argentina has been granted by anyone since fucking over the last batch of lenders], which pretty much says it all:

"The combination of Asian financial alchemy and Latin
American fiscal discipline is not something the world has been
treated to just yet."

I wouldn't put hard money on China being a good alternative source for investment just yet. In the long term, that's more likely than not, but between now and then there is a hell of a lot that very well might go horribly wrong. And in the short to mid term, anyone with any sense at all is getting the fuck out while the getting is good. [This is not to be interpreted as a defense of deficit spending.]

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Isn't "mindless skinny cunt with long blonde hair" synonymous with "perfect woman"?

Only if she doesn't talk, which definitely rules out Ann Coulter.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
the embarrassing retreat on a longtime party stance on being tough on crime and criminals

What's this about?


eta: never mind. STP.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You know, for a group of people with a mandate, the last two weeks can't really be described as an overwhelming Republican success, can they?

When you're a majority party, discipline and cohesion eventually suffer. As the 'common enemy" is no longer seen as such a threat, the GOPers will begin to turn on each other.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
The intelligence bill has a majority supporting it but NOT a majority of Republicans. If it went up for a vote, it would be passed.

This way prevents Bush from having to veto it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This way prevents Bush from having to veto it.

Which would be awkward, since he's pretending to support it.

eta:

A Mark Twain quote for RT's sig line:

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

. . . . Bitches.*


S_A_M

* In Honor of the late, great Rick James, as depicted on one of the funniest shows on television.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Which would be awkward, since he's pretending to support it.

Then why is he having formal committees re-review many of the oversight provisions?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Then why is he having formal committees re-review many of the oversight provisions?

How does this suggest a sincere desire to get it enacted, instead of (say) calling the Speaker, who happily enough is in Bush's own party, and asking him to put the fucking bill up for a vote?