She came across pretty bad to me, with the immature emotional outburst and the proposterous claim that it wasn't important why it happened.
It is hard to forget that she flat-out lied about the cause of the incident right after it happened when she blamed the anti-Muhammad movie, and she showed great contempt for our Constitutional freedoms also.
----------
Will: Is it just me, or is Ema's comment completely devoid of any point or connection to anything that you said other than her directly referring to sections of your sentences that didn't really refer to anything?
She was rather insentient, senseless, and sniffling there, Rusty. The least we could do is get her a box of kleenex. But the rest can't be cured, really.
I'm not completely against Keynesianism or running a deficit in certain time periods depending on the circumstance, but spend it on stuff that will give the country an immense return in the end, like STEM fields, stuff that actually leads to production. What a prick.
And he had this to say about Joe Scarborough:
"Scarborough seems upset, and under the delusion that my more or less standard Keynesian views are way off on the fringe. Also, that the Swedish thingie is given by Norwegian royalty."
I'm still waiting for that Bob Murphy Paul Krugman debate.
Also, I'm almost done reading the original General Theory. At first, it was actually a tough read becuase of the terms Keynes used, but I quickly figured out what he was trying to convey. I'm on the appendix to Chapter 19 and it does seem that Keynes talked plenty about investment, etc. Smart man for sure who was obviously trained in the classical economic tradition. Based on what I've read so far, it really seems like Keynes was trying to find a solution to the economic problems of the day and save capitalism from ruin. In fact, I probably can agree with his version of the business cycle, though I disagree with some of the other stuff he wrote. Either way, it's undeniable how much of an influence he has had in macroeconomics and how his influence can still be felt, especially in the idea of the supply schedule, the demand schedule and those graphs that you can find in your standard macro textbook.
After I'm done with the GT, I'll probably finish up Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and start on Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, or maybe read through some of the college economics textbooks I have. I still got plenty I need to read.
Hillary in the pantheon? Hm, let's see. I would probably put her ahead of Kissinger, Acheson, Russ, and Rice but somewhere below Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, and Clay. Sound fair, Ema, guys?
Krugman is crafty, Roberto. He isn't technically lying when he says that Europe is undergoing austerity. But he's also being deceptive in that 90-95% of this austerity has taken place the form of tax increases. England and France haven't cut spending at all and, while Spain, Italy, and Greece have cut spending, it's only been in the 1-3% range (derived from Eurostat, U.S. News and World Report, and CATO). Compare that to 1921 when Harding cut federal spending by 50% and 1946 when Truman cut it by 45% and in both instances the economy roared. Why in the hell anybody listens to Krugman is beyond me.............A book that you might want to check out is Harry Hazlitt's. "The Failure of the 'New Economics'". In it, he absolutely eviscerates the General Theory and it would probably be a very good companion piece to it.
Hillary's behavior with the emotional outburst and refusing to answer questions gets rid of a lot of the good will i gained for her over several years.
Now I again remember that she is the person at the center of a crime ring of a dozen Whitewater/Rose Law convicted felons, and only escaped conviction herself by refusing to obey Federal subpeona and claiming to be above the law ("executive privilege")
Sadly, dmarks, due to the fact that most politicians have either worked for big business, lobbied for big business, and/or taken big business's money (not to mention money from big labor and big environment), the odds of finding any more squeaky-clean candidates has probably ended.
Is it possible that in general many expect more than is reasonable? After all who among us has never erred? I for one view Hilary's testimony quite acceptable.
I guess I don't understand how her immature emotional outburst, refusal to answer easy questions, and insistence that it doesn't matter what caused this incident is "quite acceptible". Erring is one thing: committing many errors as she did and lying to cover them up is another. And calling wilful bad actions "errors" is being quite generous to her. One wilful bad action was her speech bashing the First Amendment over the incident when she knew it was a planned terrorist attack.
Do we really have to have the bar set so low? As long as she didn't rip her clothes off, fling poo, throw chairs and scream gibberish, she did a great job?
The Benghazi incident was one of the more minor of the chain of embassy attacks and casualties we have observed over the last 40 years. I cannot recall such political frenzy-feeding during any of those. My current favorite is Lindsay Graham (carolinus rodetnius) the gentleman ferret, in his rude, puerile attack on Hagel..a combat veteran. These folks will only have credibility with me when they have walked the walk....
I give Hillary's testimony about a C/C+. I think that she basically acquitted herself OK, but it still kinda bothers me that the administration was peddling this video nonsense for 2 weeks when it was reported by the A.P. that the C.I.A. bureau chief told the administration that very night that it was more than likely a terrorist attack.............BB, I agree, Mr. Graham's brand of neoconservatism is really starting to wear thin and, while he has had some episodes of bipartisanship in the past, he's really starting to sound like a partisan, too.
Another damning piece of evidence is the fact that the terrorist cell responsible for the attack was actually claiming "credit" for it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING (as opposed to later when anybody could have done so).
Hillary lying about it and going after the freedom to criticize a warlord who has been dead for more than a millennium was quite shameful. She should have defended the movie regardless. The First Amendment, from this evidence, means nothing to Hillary.
21 comments:
All this fluff about Hil being one of the greatest Sec's of State ever.....what exactly was it she accomplished.....did I miss something?
.
"...did I miss something?"
Yes. But hey, you knew that.
" THAT'S IT!"
Really. Do you want cheese with your whine? Your insentient sniffling for the sake of sniffling comes across as senseless. But hey, you knew that.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
She came across pretty bad to me, with the immature emotional outburst and the proposterous claim that it wasn't important why it happened.
It is hard to forget that she flat-out lied about the cause of the incident right after it happened when she blamed the anti-Muhammad movie, and she showed great contempt for our Constitutional freedoms also.
----------
Will: Is it just me, or is Ema's comment completely devoid of any point or connection to anything that you said other than her directly referring to sections of your sentences that didn't really refer to anything?
Ema is off her meds again.
She was rather insentient, senseless, and sniffling there, Rusty. The least we could do is get her a box of kleenex. But the rest can't be cured, really.
"Austerity" is Paul Krugman's greatest boogey man. He goes on to blame George W. Bush for everything. I love it.
Watch.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/50613650/#50613650
How much spending is enough for this man?
I'm not completely against Keynesianism or running a deficit in certain time periods depending on the circumstance, but spend it on stuff that will give the country an immense return in the end, like STEM fields, stuff that actually leads to production. What a prick.
And he had this to say about Joe Scarborough:
"Scarborough seems upset, and under the delusion that my more or less standard Keynesian views are way off on the fringe. Also, that the Swedish thingie is given by Norwegian royalty."
I'm still waiting for that Bob Murphy Paul Krugman debate.
Also, I'm almost done reading the original General Theory. At first, it was actually a tough read becuase of the terms Keynes used, but I quickly figured out what he was trying to convey. I'm on the appendix to Chapter 19 and it does seem that Keynes talked plenty about investment, etc. Smart man for sure who was obviously trained in the classical economic tradition. Based on what I've read so far, it really seems like Keynes was trying to find a solution to the economic problems of the day and save capitalism from ruin. In fact, I probably can agree with his version of the business cycle, though I disagree with some of the other stuff he wrote. Either way, it's undeniable how much of an influence he has had in macroeconomics and how his influence can still be felt, especially in the idea of the supply schedule, the demand schedule and those graphs that you can find in your standard macro textbook.
After I'm done with the GT, I'll probably finish up Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and start on Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, or maybe read through some of the college economics textbooks I have. I still got plenty I need to read.
Hillary in the pantheon? Hm, let's see. I would probably put her ahead of Kissinger, Acheson, Russ, and Rice but somewhere below Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, and Clay. Sound fair, Ema, guys?
Krugman is crafty, Roberto. He isn't technically lying when he says that Europe is undergoing austerity. But he's also being deceptive in that 90-95% of this austerity has taken place the form of tax increases. England and France haven't cut spending at all and, while Spain, Italy, and Greece have cut spending, it's only been in the 1-3% range (derived from Eurostat, U.S. News and World Report, and CATO). Compare that to 1921 when Harding cut federal spending by 50% and 1946 when Truman cut it by 45% and in both instances the economy roared. Why in the hell anybody listens to Krugman is beyond me.............A book that you might want to check out is Harry Hazlitt's. "The Failure of the 'New Economics'". In it, he absolutely eviscerates the General Theory and it would probably be a very good companion piece to it.
I'd put Hillary on a par with Clay..they were alike in some ways.
(the rest of the bunch, I'd put above Kissinger..but I'm a bit of
a grouch)
They both sure wanted to be President pretty bad, especially him. That dude ran more than Frank Shorter.
Hillary's behavior with the emotional outburst and refusing to answer questions gets rid of a lot of the good will i gained for her over several years.
Now I again remember that she is the person at the center of a crime ring of a dozen Whitewater/Rose Law convicted felons, and only escaped conviction herself by refusing to obey Federal subpeona and claiming to be above the law ("executive privilege")
Sadly, dmarks, due to the fact that most politicians have either worked for big business, lobbied for big business, and/or taken big business's money (not to mention money from big labor and big environment), the odds of finding any more squeaky-clean candidates has probably ended.
It's one of the reason why I voted for Johnson but, who knows, maybe if we looked hard enough, we'd find a semblance of dirt on him, too.
Is it possible that in general many expect more than is reasonable? After all who among us has never erred? I for one view Hilary's testimony quite acceptable.
I guess I don't understand how her immature emotional outburst, refusal to answer easy questions, and insistence that it doesn't matter what caused this incident is "quite acceptible". Erring is one thing: committing many errors as she did and lying to cover them up is another. And calling wilful bad actions "errors" is being quite generous to her. One wilful bad action was her speech bashing the First Amendment over the incident when she knew it was a planned terrorist attack.
Do we really have to have the bar set so low? As long as she didn't rip her clothes off, fling poo, throw chairs and scream gibberish, she did a great job?
The Benghazi incident was one of the more minor of the chain of embassy attacks and casualties we
have observed over the last 40 years. I cannot recall such political frenzy-feeding during any of those. My current favorite
is Lindsay Graham (carolinus rodetnius) the gentleman ferret,
in his rude, puerile attack on
Hagel..a combat veteran. These folks will only have credibility
with me when they have walked the walk....
I give Hillary's testimony about a C/C+. I think that she basically acquitted herself OK, but it still kinda bothers me that the administration was peddling this video nonsense for 2 weeks when it was reported by the A.P. that the C.I.A. bureau chief told the administration that very night that it was more than likely a terrorist attack.............BB, I agree, Mr. Graham's brand of neoconservatism is really starting to wear thin and, while he has had some episodes of bipartisanship in the past, he's really starting to sound like a partisan, too.
BB: Then it should have been a no-brainer for Hillary to deal with and move on.
Will: Peddling is one thing, but Hillary going after freedom of expression/the First Amendment is another.
Another damning piece of evidence is the fact that the terrorist cell responsible for the attack was actually claiming "credit" for it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING (as opposed to later when anybody could have done so).
Hillary lying about it and going after the freedom to criticize a warlord who has been dead for more than a millennium was quite shameful. She should have defended the movie regardless. The First Amendment, from this evidence, means nothing to Hillary.
Post a Comment