tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post1032127181733821592..comments2023-08-24T07:27:12.657-07:00Comments on Contra O'Reilly: On Keith OlbermannWill "take no prisoners" Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-8756175997188037902012-04-05T16:00:14.341-07:002012-04-05T16:00:14.341-07:00A) When Blacks and Hispanics in many cities can...A) When Blacks and Hispanics in many cities can't start their own cab companies because they can't afford the licensing, when little girls won't even start a lemonade stand for fear of getting busted, and when my own dang mother had to spend hundreds of dollars to renovate simply because some idiot at OSHA said the sinks at her beauty parlor were a couple of inches too close together, then, yeah, we really DO have a spate too many regulations.......B) Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Bears Stearns were at the center of the financial crisis and they would have been able to make the same bad investments had the Gramm-Leaech-Bliley Act never even passed.......As for the SEC, yes, it did change it's rules relative to an investment bank's debt to net-capital ratios (2004). But an analysis of these companies' ratios indicate that in many instances they were actually HIGHER prior to 2004. HIGHER, wd!.......I've already cited that spending on financial regulation and the number of pages in the regulation codes were both at an all-time high during the eight years of the Bush administration (kind of a pesky little fact, huh?).......The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, you ask? Yes, it did allow for the emergence of credit swaps and other such "instruments", but it didn't in any way create the original risk to happen - you know, the actual toxic loans themselves. Hell, if anything, that law may have spread the risk around a little.......C) An excessively close-minded and childlike criteria - judging something on such a ridiculously superfluous ground.......D) A libertarian partisan? Wow, is that kind of like a Green Party partisan? And why do you rag so much on libertarians? Except for the taxing the shit out of successful people and redistributing it to the irresponsible people component, you just might find that they're a hell of a lot less crony and corporate leaning than the Democrats and Keynesians. That, and they're certainly a hell of a lot better than the Dems on civil liberties, reducing the military budget, and foreign policy.......And Mr. Greenspan is a registered Republican (perhaps with some libertarian leanings - though, based on his worrysome/idiotic FED policies, I highly doubt it at this point) who I've consistently been critical of (funny, you NEVER cite that fact when calling me a conservative).Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-40629071458019213322012-04-05T10:24:16.755-07:002012-04-05T10:24:16.755-07:00You're going to vote for the candidate who is ...You're going to vote for the candidate who is bankrupting you, and enriching his Wall Street friends, corporate lobbyists, and "union bosses"?! I wouldn't vote for that guy. Not if there were an alternative who was a moderate like like me (if I were a moderate, which I'm not).<br /><br />[A] Business is not overtaxed or over-regulated. Therefore my understanding is correct.<br /><br />[B] The housing bubble was caused by under regulation. The things you cite were factors too, but it was mostly under regulation.<br /><br />[C] Yes.<br /><br />[D] Carney is a Libertarian partisan. And Alan Greenspan is a Libertarian... in fact, he had direct interaction with Ayn Rand.<br /><br />So what if Chris Hayes reads his tweets? I don't care... but what about you? I thought you had a low opinion of Chris Hayes? Does this change your opinion of him?<br /><br />There may be some interesting info in his tweets, although one would have to decipher them and disregard the Libertarian BS.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-10656724656383428562012-04-04T15:55:50.449-07:002012-04-04T15:55:50.449-07:00a) Your understanding is wrong. b) The housing bub...a) Your understanding is wrong. b) The housing bubble had little to do with under-regulation (the budget of the SEC more than doubled under Mr. Bush), in my opinion, and far more to do with the idiotic policies of Alan Greenspan and the FED; artificially low interest rates causing too much money to flow into the housing sector, a far too expanding money supply, the creation of a bailout culture, etc.. c) You base your opinion of an entire book based on a subtitle? Wow. d) Timothy Carney is NOT a partisan (Chris Hayes says that he reads his tweets every day). He hammers Bush almost as he does Mr. Obama. You are totally wrong on this one. e) Maybe his next book will have a better subtitle.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-59023923467726775232012-04-04T09:09:07.464-07:002012-04-04T09:09:07.464-07:00I just looked at the Amazon reviews, and I remembe...I just looked at the Amazon reviews, and I remember now which review I must have referenced before. It was this one:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R2RZS02K77PEZJ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2RZS02K77PEZJ" rel="nofollow">Disgusting Title</a>.<br /><br />The author of this Amazon review is 100 percent correct.<br /><br />I bet you're basing your entire assessment of this guy's review on my recommendation of it. In other words, you're bashing the reviewer without having read his review. Yet you bash me for not reading or researching the Carney book (which the reviewer points out has a title meant to pander to the rightwingers)... what do you make of that?<br /><br />I'm going to take the reviewer's advice and pass on this book/Obama hit job by a partisan with an agenda.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-60947163345520411172012-04-04T08:59:47.955-07:002012-04-04T08:59:47.955-07:00Will: You haven't read the book and you haven&...<i>Will: You haven't read the book and you haven't researched the book. And you're basing your entire assessment of it based upon one cherry-picked review from Amazon by..."</i><br /><br />I did not base my assessment of the book based on an Amazon review. I based it on the highly inflammatory subtitle... <br /><br />"How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses".<br /><br />Union bosses? Yeah, I know where this guy is coming from, and I don't share his worldview.<br /><br />But I did a little research, and according to a Firedoglake <a href="http://my.firedoglake.com/knoxville/tag/timothy-carney/" rel="nofollow">post</a>, "The reality of Obama's presidency is so bad that Cenk Uygur has called it Barack Obama, Inc".<br /><br />Now, the article doesn't say that Cenk Uygur (an individual I trust) read and approves the book, so I'm still thinking (based on the title) that there is still a fair amount of spinning going on, but I'll also concede that there definitely is some criticisms to be rightly levied against Obama in regard to his relationship with Wall Street and Corporate Lobbyists (but NOT with "Union Bosses").<br /><br />Not that I didn't think this before though. I think you misunderstood my mistrust of this book. I never said I thought everything in it was probably an outright lie.<br /><br />Maybe he's got it fairly accurate (except for the union bashing, of course).Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-24411894612713636362012-04-04T06:58:25.282-07:002012-04-04T06:58:25.282-07:00Will: It means that a person understands that an o...<i>Will: It means that a person understands that an overtaxed and over-regulated economy...</i><br /><br />It's my understanding that you use "overtaxed and over-regulated" as code for bending over backward to please our corporate masters.<br /><br />I do not believe the economy is over-taxed or over-regulated. I'm sure there are some dumb regulations, and there are some regulations that are unnecessary, but, in general, I think corporations are under-regulated, and/or the regulations that exist aren't being enforced.<br /><br />This is how we got the housing bubble and the BP oil spill.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-75207378945646936152012-04-03T15:15:54.271-07:002012-04-03T15:15:54.271-07:00Alright, let me try and explain this to you AGAIN....Alright, let me try and explain this to you AGAIN. a) "Getting it" does not mean playing favoritism and footsy with large corporations (a la Mr.s Bush and Obama). It doesn't mean that at all. It means that a person understands that an overtaxed and over-regulated economy IN GENERAL (the economy isn't just corporations, wd - you are in fact aware of that, correct?) is bad for America's business sector.......b) Regulations oft-times end up hurting smaller firms and start-ups more so than they do the larger corporations. The larger corporations have the higher priced lawyers and are able to afford compliance more readily and some regulations actually make it impossible for working and middle class individuals to even start a damned business (again, I refer you the Medallion cab monopoly in N.Y.C. and the fact that a young kid can't even start a lemonade stand these days without some stupid-assed official bearing down on him/her).......c) Big government legislation all too often HELPS the big corporations. I refer you to the health-care bill, the stimulus, cap and trade (a monstrosity of a perk-barreled turkey), etc.. I mean, it's a veritable love-fest at times.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-12556361384010040622012-04-03T14:58:22.579-07:002012-04-03T14:58:22.579-07:00You haven't read the book and you haven't ...You haven't read the book and you haven't researched the book. And you're basing your entire assessment of it based upon one cherry-picked review from Amazon by yet another malcontent who probably hasn't read it, either! And you did the same exact thing with Dr. Emanuel's book, too....I'm beginning to see a disturbing (as in frighteningly closed minded) trend here, wd.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-43415481342318007762012-04-03T14:32:58.141-07:002012-04-03T14:32:58.141-07:00Timothy Carney is a well-respected libertarian who...Timothy Carney is a well-respected libertarian whose book is one of the most completely documented and researched books that I've ever read (and he hammers the Republicans and Bush as well). And the fact that you can't give even one specific of how he "spun" the data (almost all of which he derived from nonpartisan sources such as opensecrets.org and even some leftists sources such as the New York Times) is yet another example of you making callous and unsubstantiated accusations.......I'll deal with the rest of your nonsequitor when I get home from work.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-2200269441678451252012-04-03T10:39:27.040-07:002012-04-03T10:39:27.040-07:00Will: Are you saying that I think that only corpor...<i>Will: Are you saying that I think that only corporatists understand the economy...</i><br /><br />Yes, that is what I understood you meant by "it". Which is why Progressives admire FDR... for not getting "it".<br /><br />Also, you're referring to that book/hit job by the Rightwing author with an agenda (I forget the title and author, but I'm sure you know which book I mean). The one with the subtitle that confirms that the "facts" within will be highly spun to make Obama look as bad as possible.<br /><br />But, yes, Obama is a centrist who is "at least a dabbling corporatist". But that would mean he "got it", and you said he didn't. Which is it?Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-47591981382587754352012-04-02T19:58:52.924-07:002012-04-02T19:58:52.924-07:00wd, you're conflating two entirely separate to...wd, you're conflating two entirely separate topics. Yes, in my opinion, Mr. Obama is at least a dabbling corporatist. But how in the hell does that mean that he "gets the economy"? Are you saying that I think that only corporatists understand the economy (a ridiculous construct in that it's the smaller and mid-sized firms who are emerging drivers of the economy and those who tend to get the shaft when big business and big government get into bed together)?Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-65321690948377957162012-04-02T17:14:47.459-07:002012-04-02T17:14:47.459-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-33928189965104927902012-04-02T16:07:39.544-07:002012-04-02T16:07:39.544-07:00Will: President Obama blows me clear out of the wa...<i>Will: President Obama blows me clear out of the water. NO CONTEST.</i><br /><br />But, <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-democratic-presidentscandidates-and.html" rel="nofollow">regarding</a> whether or not President Obama gets "it", you said, "doubtful so far". Those are your words: he doesn't get it (or it's doubtful, at least).<br /><br />He (according to your definition of "it") can't "blow you out of the water". You get "it" and president Obama does not.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-51518426658599490522012-04-02T14:52:45.032-07:002012-04-02T14:52:45.032-07:00wd, I listed those individuals, a) because they ta...wd, I listed those individuals, a) because they take a lot of corporate money and b) because the legislation that they proffer is frequently a bonanza (that cap and trade turkey is a perfect example) for big money interests and tends to hurt far more more the smaller businesses and start-ups.......And if that's your definition of a centrist, wd, then President Obama blows me clear out of the water. NO CONTEST.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-73593309794109421192012-04-02T13:47:19.665-07:002012-04-02T13:47:19.665-07:00dmarks: Yet, you listed as an example the DLC, whi...<i>dmarks: Yet, you listed as an example the DLC, which is not in the pocket of big business. More incoherence from you.</i><br /><br />Actually, the incoherence is coming from you. Sucking up to corporate interests for campaign cash is one of the primary founding principles of the DLC.<br /><br /><i>dmarks: I was referring to the fact, that by being more centrist, the DLC tends more toward the interest of actual persons...</i><br /><br />Another of your "false facts" dmarks. Being centrist means they tend more toward the interests of corporations (as exemplified by Will) and away from the interests of the people.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-25240281744608198302012-04-02T08:36:40.710-07:002012-04-02T08:36:40.710-07:00WD said: "You didn't. I used the word &qu...WD said: "You didn't. I used the word "corporate" to mean in the pocket of big business."<br /><br />Yet, you listed as an example the DLC, which is not in the pocket of big business. More incoherence from you.<br /><br />"If you believe corporations are people, then, yes"<br /><br />No, I was referring to the fact, that by being more centrist, the DLC tends more toward the interest of actual persons (not corporations) than the interests of the State.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-11837625302199726982012-04-02T08:27:11.485-07:002012-04-02T08:27:11.485-07:00dmarks: When did I redefine corporation?
You didn...<i>dmarks: When did I redefine corporation?</i><br /><br />You didn't. I used the word "corporate" to mean in the pocket of big business. You redefined it to mean "works for, or owns, a corporation". None of the politicians Will mentioned (those that still are politicians) work for corporations, and are therefore (using your redefinition) not corporate.<br /><br /><i>dmarks: The DLC is actually known for... giving more consideration to the interests of the people...</i><br /><br />If you believe corporations are people, then, yes, the DCL definitely DOES give more consideration to the interests of "the people" (ie corporations).<br /><br />I happen to strongly disagree that corporations are people, as do most Democratic voters and progressive politicians. That is why we don't like the DLC.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-31619348198667870332012-04-02T04:25:23.832-07:002012-04-02T04:25:23.832-07:00When did I redefine corporation?
The government i...When did I redefine corporation?<br /><br />The government is often in regards to the negative attributes ascribed to corporations. It's less accountable (due to being a monopoly) and it will readily shoot you or harm you in other ways if you refuse to do business with it. <br /><br />The DLC is actually known for being a somewhat less hardline version of leftist: giving more consideration to the interests of the people instead of the State, compared to the more hardline leftists.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-344642529607693192012-04-01T17:03:20.819-07:002012-04-01T17:03:20.819-07:00Will, almost none of the Democrats you listed are ...Will, almost none of the Democrats you listed are "corporate"... because the still work for the government. The government isn't a corporation (according to dmarks' redefinition of the term).<br /><br /><i>dmarks: In any case, the DLC has nothing to do with corporate interests.</i><br /><br />Except their advocating that Democratic politicians accept campaign contributions from them and do their bidding. Other then that, no, nothing.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-3853724386786439722012-04-01T16:20:53.461-07:002012-04-01T16:20:53.461-07:00"Also, bush was AWOL. The evidence was real. ..."Also, bush was AWOL. The evidence was real. The story was real. The story was NOT based on "faked documents"""<br /><br />The story was fake. The evidence was fake: in fact it was forged. In fact it is the only evidence of the story.<br /><br />On the other side, you have the real story: George W. Bush was never charged with AWOL, and he was discharged honorably (no fake documents there). That doesn't happen in an AWOL case. <br /><br />Sorry, forged documents, an angry party hack or two who can't back up what they say, and a blogger who wishes real hard it were true don't make for a real story.<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />"dmarks, I don't give a damn how many times you gave a thumbs down on the Urban Dictionary definition."<br /><br />I didn't even do one thumbs down, or look into what is necessary to set up an account to do so.<br /><br />In any case, the DLC has nothing to do with corporate interests.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-61364569073946362662012-04-01T15:59:31.088-07:002012-04-01T15:59:31.088-07:00I can think of a lot of corporate Democrats, wd; J...I can think of a lot of corporate Democrats, wd; Jon Corzine, Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Timothery Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Robert Rubin, Barack Obama. I mean, my God, the list of non-corporate Democrats would probably be the shorter one.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-23590942637051177992012-04-01T14:40:23.872-07:002012-04-01T14:40:23.872-07:00dmarks, I don't give a damn how many times you...dmarks, I don't give a damn how many times you gave a thumbs down on the Urban Dictionary definition. That's the definition. I've heard it used on Leftwing news channels and leftwing radio, and you can find hundreds of articles that use it if you do a Google search. It is not at all "obscure", but in fact quite common. I also don't give a damn if you're not familiar with it.<br /><br />Here's a YouTube video about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7WVc0u_DAM" rel="nofollow">Corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln</a>.<br /><br />Also, bush was AWOL. The evidence was real. The story was real. The story was NOT based on "faked documents". You're a liar. I never said "the evidence was fake, but the story was real". I NEVER said it.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-85292929425982128692012-04-01T13:06:33.149-07:002012-04-01T13:06:33.149-07:00By the way, the obscure definition WD found at the...By the way, the obscure definition WD found at the fake dictionary "urban dictionary" is a fail:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=corporate-democrat" rel="nofollow">click here</a>.<br /><br />Most of the people who have reviewed this definition have voted it down.<br /><br />It's worse than "The definition is not "some obtuse twist of things"". The dictionary you dug real hard to find it in presents it as a failed definition.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-45887002647497987512012-04-01T13:01:54.707-07:002012-04-01T13:01:54.707-07:00By the way, here is an example of NBC News doing w...By the way, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6" rel="nofollow">here</a> is an example of NBC News doing what WD claims to decry: lying and misleading in the news, by presenting <b>doctored and faked</b> statements from George Zimmerman on the "Today Show". This is the same company as MSNBC and Rachel Maddow.<br /><br />And in this case Fox turned out to be the real investigative journalists.<br /><br />This is just one of countless examples which makes WD's claim that Fox News lies and the rest do not sort of misleading "propaganda" in itself.<br /><br />This is hardly new. CBS News once presented a fabricated claim of Bush being AWOL that was based on faked documents. WD still defends the bad journalism of "the evidence was fake, but the story was real".dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-34421501759756871452012-04-01T12:53:20.467-07:002012-04-01T12:53:20.467-07:00The DLC is indeed a corporation. However, the corp...The DLC is indeed a corporation. However, the corporations that are most relevant for Olbermann are the ones he's received millions for being a mouthpiece for. And the one for corporate Democrat Al Gore is the biggest corporation in the world (the one he sits on the board of).<br /><br />As for the urban dictionary, which is chock full of fake definitions, this one "... where most power and policy is centered around propping up or protecting corporate interest..." is just a nutty conspiracy theory.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com