11/02/2007 10:37:09 AM EST

The Real John Edwards

posted by Twba


Russert: Is there anyone here who disagrees with Senator Dodd in decriminalizing marijuana?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
[Former Senator Edwards propelled his hand skyward as fast as any brown nosing student in secondary school.]

Russert: Senator Biden, Senator... Senator Edwards, why?

Edwards: Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people.

A liberal opposes criminalization of marijuana. John Edwards is illiberal.

< Praise for Turkey! | The Islamofascists Would Kill Me First >
 Display:
The Real John Edwards | 137 comments (137 topical, 0 hidden)
Whatever (none / 0)

Let's see, which of these issues is least impotant to me...

1)-"Free" Trade

2)-Corporate America/Shrinking Middle Class

3)-Pot

I disagree with Edwards, but uh, that issue is SO LOW down the list.  Besides, do you honestly believe that any of the potential winners from either party would do what Dodd proposes were they to become president?  The obvious answer is no, so pragmatically speaking, it's irrelevant.

And if you want to talk about backward and illogal stances (and absurd priorities) look no further: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.c om/max-blumenthal/theocracy -now_b_70314.html

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 12:04:00 PM EST

Also (none / 0)
I posted a short critique of Thom Hartmann for you.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 12:48:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hilarious! (none / 0)

You went out of your way to set a cheap trap about John Edwards knowing that I would respond so that you could try to revive and old thread (that no one cares aabout anymore) where you gave up and had to retreat for several days to come up with a response.

Pathetic, honestly.  It's ok, no one thinks any less of you for not calling into Hartmann's show to let him know what his "factual inaccuracies" are (despite, again, how he doesn't shout down and mock his guests like the con show hosts, and some liberal show hosts, do).

PS---I can barely read that "critique" you spent the last few days writing as it's squished into a seemingly single line of vertical words. (is that just my PC?) But seeing how desperate you are to be seen as always right and having the last word, I'm sure you'll be reposting it here in a moment for our enjoyment, right?

 

 

 

 

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 01:10:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Outrage? (none / 0)

You must have poor reading comprehension then.  I'm not mad, I think it discredits him to be so desperate as to create a fake post in effort to revive an old thread.

PS---Speaking of which, the abortion thread is now barely legible as well.  I don't want to take this fake thread off topic, but I should point out that you don't notice the difference between a radical left group (some animal rights activists) and and a radical right group (some pro-lifers) despite the fact that I explained the parallels clearly.  And you said *I* need to watch *my* bias?

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 01:43:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Two Things (none / 0)

First, I want to say thanks!  I didn't know I could change the settings.  Although I have to question why the default settings would form things that way to begin with...

At any rate, I don't think you understand.  My point was that despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum, there are some strong similarities between some animal rights activists and some pro-lifers (explained in the other thread).

You were already aware of the differences (who isn't?) but you're still (despite my explanation) unaware of what they have in common.

The fact that I generally dismiss the radical elements of BOTH groups (despite considering myself to be progressive overall) is what seems to separate us. 

PS---Being "pro-life", specifically anti-stem cell research while also being pro-war is an incredible contradiction. I understand when people defend the death penalty and possibly a *justified* war, but that's about it. 

You assume death in war is a necessary evil because there is a *chance* that this death *might* save lives in the long run (but there's no guarantee, in any war, that this will actually happen, the only guarantee is a certain amount of death in the short run).

The funny thing is, this is EXACTLY the same as stem cell research if you believe that life begins at conception.

In that case, there is a *chance* that this death (of fertililzed eggs which you call life)  *might* save lives in the long turn (but there's no guarantee that this will actually happen, the only guarantee is a certain amount of death in the short run).

Go ahead, read that a couple of times and let it sink in before you respond. Then try to rationalize that contradiction. 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 02:13:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That was an awful response (none / 0)

Well, I see debate is pointless with you.

You totally skirt the issue at hand (or at best, distort it into something barely recognizable) and resort to making fun of someone's username in attempt to bolster a weak argument.

I called you out on a blatant contradiction, period.  And I explained that the justification for war and stem cell research are fundamentally the same if you believe that life begins at conception because they both rely on short term death for the *potential* of saving lives in the long run.

And it's not like we ONLY kill terrorists in Iraq. The reality is we kill FAR more innocent men, women and yes, children, including pregnant women carrying potential life. 

  So your attempt at rationalizing my point as a difference in justification is simply nonsensical.  I already *explained* the justification is essentially the same.

Also, speaking of bias, posting laughable strawman verions of so called liberal positions (i.e. liberals want to put an innocent human face on a whale, etc.) doesn't help your case.  Are there *some* liberals who anthropormophize animals?  Sure, they are a minority group within the umbrella you call "liberal". But your post doesn't make that distinction, it doesn't even attempt to.

Unlike my supposedly biased post (you didn't explain where the bias is, just saying it doesn't make it true) that is carefully worded to say *some* animal rights people and *some* pro lifers. 

 

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 02:59:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
(Sigh) (none / 0)

Are you purposely ignoring my words or is it unintentional?

How can you say I don't make the distinction between innocent life and "enemy combatants"?

As I already said (look for yourself) we HAVE killed hundreds of thousands of *innocent* men, women and children (including pregant women who carry potential life which you plainly equate with existing life).  It's irrelevant that we may not *intend* to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, because we KNOW ahead of time that lots of civilian death is assured (even Dick Cheney said this in the early 90's when explaining why we shouldn't go after Saddam).

FYI, enemy combatant and civilian are not interchangable terms, despite your desire for them to be so.

So again, I've completely debunked your rationalization.  I assume you will now either avoid this issue, or reply by misrepresenting my argument or ignoring it (like you did this last time). 

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 03:28:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, now you're just being intentionally ridiculous (none / 0)

Everyone, read what BytchBang wrote above.  Now look at what I wrote in the original post he's responding to:

"...It's irrelevant that we may not *intend* to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, because we KNOW ahead of time that lots of civilian death is assured (even Dick Cheney said this in the early 90's when explaining why we shouldn't go after Saddam)..."

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 03:39:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

Obviously that is not my intention, because I clearly stated that innocents are not intentionally killed, but it's clear that we know *before we to war* that a certain number (within a projected range) will be killed.

That's why I refered Dick Cheney's speech from the early 90's.  He said one of the reasons not to go into Iraq would be heavy civilian casualities.

There, that's prett straightfoward, isn't it?

Would you be for stem cell research if lots of zygotes (call them embryos if that helps) were *unintentionally* destroyed?  

For example, let's say that most batches of "potential life" *could* later be implanted into a woman to eventually produce a baby.  In other words, let's say hypothetically for sake of argument that stem cell research untinentionally "killed" 1 out of every 50 potential babies.

Would you then support it, even though the *end result* is still "dead babies"?  Remember, the goal in war AND stem cell research is not to destroy life.  It's to save lives in the long run, and in both cases, that outcome is not guaranteed.

It's not as if scientists are just setting petri dishes on fire for the fun of it. 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 04:10:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 0)

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the clear contradiction that exists in your belief system with regard to war and stem cell research.

It's difficult, I know, to feel strongly about something and have someone present a clear, logical argument against it. You either have to bite the bullet and admit you're wrong, OR you can distort, ignore and deny the truth until we feel safely comfortable in your old belief system.

Apparently you chose the latter. 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 05:07:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you appreciate nuance? (none / 0)
It's loss of *potential* life, something that wouldn't be viable outside of the womb in the vast majority of cases (notice my careful wording to avoid you posting some link about the 1 in a billion case of a super premature baby living for more than a minutes or days).

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 05:09:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bias (none / 0)

You have been officially knighted Sir Biastard by King BytchBang III.

Sir Ziptardo welcomes you.

BB, I had such great hopes for you and I am so disappointed. What did you make it to? 10 maybe 15 exchanges before tarding it up. You are really not ready for the grown ups table.

by z1p101 on 11/03/2007 09:05:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dear God (none / 0)
Are you STILL talking?

by jarett on 11/02/2007 07:57:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rainy Day Bud on Bud (none / 0)
Jarett, answer my questionnaire.

Is it wrong to harvest ganja before its seeds have reached their third trimester?

Isn't discarding the seeds on your rolling tray depriving hundreds of embryonic buds their right to stone ya when you're at the breakfast table?

by Twba on 11/02/2007 08:09:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TWBA I'm disappointed (none / 0)
You know very well the best ganja is the ganja that's never been fertilized to begin with. Sinsemilla

We need to practice pollunation control to prevent the murder of poor innocent third trimester seedlings.

Like our young daughters we must keep the young female cannabis plants purity intact at all cost.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 11/02/2007 08:53:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hubbletard (none / 0)
You know very well the best ganja is the ganja that's never been fertilized to begin with.

I think I heard about that in the documentary film, Reefer Abstinence.

We need to practice pollination control to prevent the murder of poor innocent third trimester seedlings.

But sometimes accidents happen. Isn't it better to discard them when they're only embryonic seeds rather than neglect them after sprouting?

by Twba on 11/03/2007 06:29:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That depends (none / 0)

I just looked at my copy of the questionnaire and I have a few questions.

Was the plant raped or was it a willing participant in the pollination process?

Does the process begin before it began or once it began has it begun?

Does the seed share the mother's photosyntheses process?

Does the embryonic seed go through a metamorphosis like a butterfly?

I am looking for a copy of "We the Cannabis" now to find out the plants rights to life, hydroponics and the pursuit of someone's happiness. 

by z1p101 on 11/03/2007 08:07:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ZipTardorino (none / 0)
I just looked at my copy of the questionnaire and I have a few questions.

Who said you could ask questions before answering the questionnaire, ZipTard? And don't think your Tardiness hasn't been noticed. Do you have a good excuse for your late arrival to the Tard party? Z1pTardo, your Tardy comment is the Tardiest Tardiness that's ever Tarded.

Was the plant raped or was it a willing participant in the pollination process?

How could it be construed as rape when she was clearly asking to be pollinated by displaying her pistils for all the world to see? No wind borne pollen can resist such a temptation.

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.

Does the process begin before it began or once it began has it begun?

We may dispute the moment of beginning, but is there anyone who disagrees that it ain't over until the gravitationally challenged female gendered person sings?

Does the embryonic seed go through a metamorphosis like a butterfly?

That reminds me of my favorite Hollywood metamorphosis. You know how the frumpy librarian morphs into the smoking hot babe by simply taking off her granny glasses, applying some eye makeup and revealing some skin?

Metamorphosis. Butterflies. Mmmmm, butterflied pork chops.

by Twba on 11/03/2007 11:16:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
thats interesting! (none / 0)
ohhhhhh  thats really interesting! What else you gonna read.. ?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 01:45:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mary Jane (none / 0)
It's not unusual for a bit of a time to pass between replies, when we all have jobs that pay the bills and blogs are just for fun. I also blew off half a workday to play another round of golf yesterday. So, I finally got around to critiquing Hartmann. No, I won't be cutting and pasting it on this thread. It belongs on the thread of comments telling me how fair and balanced Thom Hartman is.

I did not create this particular diary entry to trap anyone. I did it because I'm tired of people calling themselves liberal and then jumping on the Drug War bandwagon. It's one thing for a fascistic former prosecutor to want to lock more people up for possessing or selling a small quantity of mildly psychoactive vegetable matter, it's another for the people who claim to be the liberals in American politics to gleefully raise their hands volunteering to swell the prison population with perpetrators of victimless crimes, to send a signal.

The signal I'm receiving is that only fringe candidates are willing to espouse the liberal position: Ron "9/11 Truther" Paul, Chris "Is He Still In The Race?" Dodd, Dennis "Ufologist" Kucinich and Mike "Fringiest" Gravel.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 04:41:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever, you're full of it (none / 0)

I called you out on this fake-thread and you know it.

Besides, your "critique" was questionable at best.  You clearly don't understand Hartmann's comprehensive position.

We don't have to rehash it all here, but you claimed Thom thinks the ONLY reason thinks have gone so poorly in the last 26 years or so is Reagan drastically cutting taxes.  You go on to mention all of the other factors he left out.

Great. Except that you left out all of the factors Thom himself mentions, including massive union busting, deregulation and consolidation and the double whammy of insourcing and outsourcing (creating de-dacto maxium wage lows for low and high skill workers respectively).

You also talk about what a booming middle class China has, but you leave out important things like uh, the fact they have MUCH higher tariffs than we have (20% on imported cars vs 2% here).  Not to mention the fact that this relatively small middle class has only been around for, *at most*, 10 years (you know, the time during which we sent them so many jobs). 

Let's give it another decade or two before we declare them a smashing success.  

But you're right, we do have jobs and can't spend all day posting.

PS---You're much more articulate and well thought out than bytchbang, for what it's worth. 

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 05:17:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fake (none / 0)
I called you out on this fake-thread and you know it.

There sure is a lot of discussion for a fake thread. And since when is legalizing skunk bud not a perfect issue for a classical liberal to ridicule fake liberals like John Edwards?

Besides, your "critique" was questionable at best.  You clearly don't understand Hartmann's comprehensive position.

I understand Hartmann well enough to know he is playing fast and loose with the facts. His false claims about the Great Depression and Smoot-Hawley are proof of that.

You also talk about what a booming middle class China has...

I brought it up to disprove the claim that a middle class is always created by a liberal democracy. You're not claiming that China is a liberal democracy, are you?

FYI, no thread is ever really dead. I can see replies to even my oldest comments in my hotlist. We don't have to bore everyone with esoteric comments here, when everyone clearly wants to talk about Commie Panamerica. Acroso, what have you been smoking? I hope you brought enough to share with the rest of the class.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 06:10:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Try golfing another round (none / 0)
ohhhh the classic liberal  typed a big word .. esoteric. Might I suggest that you golf another round , because you are getting your ass kicked here. Leave while you still have your arrogance. If you keep going  he will take that too.  

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 06:24:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Acutally no (none / 0)

Hartmann is playing with the facts *in your opinion*, and the opinion of a nameless sea of conservative economists. 

But even you question your own opinion, which is why you won't call his show despite, as I've said repeatedly, the fact that he'll move you to the front of the line and will treat you with respect, unlike most talk show hosts.

Also, if you read closely Hartmann points out that China HAS strict government regulations and tariffs for business.  Not to mention the fact that there is still an incredible polarization of wealth in China with far more people in the poor or "working poor" category than in the "middle class".

http://inbeddedautonomy.blo gspot.com/2007/10/rising-mi ddle-class.html

 

 

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 07:08:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He is full of (none / 0)
LOL @ a sea of nameless conservative economists. He also cited a sea of conservative scientists that say global warming is a hoax in another thread . I mean besides that ONE  scientist in Colorado. Classic liberals don't like Tom Hartman because hes liberal. Its a conundrum that only he has the key to..its beyond us mortals. There is no reason for him to call Hartman as its evident just from his posts here that his position is , how do I put this so his massive intellect will understand it.. UNTENABLE .

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 07:17:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Opinions (none / 0)
Hartmann is playing with the facts in your opinion, and the opinion of a nameless sea of conservative economists.

They have names and so do the liberal economists who disagree with his characterization of Smoot-Hawley and its effects. It's not controversial at all among economists of all stripes that protectionism greatly contributed to the severity of the Depression.

But even you question your own opinion, which is why you won't call his show...

You don't really know me well enough to know why I don't call his show. Of course I question my opinions all the time. To do otherwise is to risk being left behind by evolving knowledge. If and when I'm presented with new information that shows I'm wrong, I change my opinion. Do you have new info that contradicts the before and after Smoot-Hawley unemployment figures and the claim that American industries were decimated by tariffs on raw materials that couldn't be sourced domestically?

by Twba on 11/02/2007 07:57:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All right then (none / 0)

Again, it depends on who you ask.  But it's interesting that China and India are taking all of our jobs and making money hand over first despite and incredible amount of "protectionism", including (for the 3rd time) very high tariffs (I know, you cringe when you read that) and preventing certain giant corporations (like Walmart) in to displace small/locally owned business.

Our US tariffs were still reasonably high (relatively speaking) up until Reagan/Clinton.

And no, I don't have any *new* information on Smoot-Hawley (nor do you) because nothing *new* has been written about this old topic recently. But I guess it comes down to which economists you want to believe, which history you want to reconcile your worldview with and most importantly, which current events (in developing countries with "protectionist" policy) you choose to ignore because they contradict you.

Well, that and the fact that one need only have lived through or and talked to people who've been around for the last several decades to get a sense for just how much worse off we are *now* compared to the post new-deal era where someone could raise a family on one good union job. 

by Tom Hanc on 11/03/2007 12:47:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Quickly (none / 0)
You could have responded on the other thread and kept this one for reefer madness. So, I'll make this quick.

...China and India are taking all of our jobs...

Wrong. Unemployment is low and manufacturing is still huge in the US. We've lost manufacturing jobs to automation.

Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 11 percent, Miklovic noted. But at the same time, Japan's manufacturing employment base has dropped by 16 percent, while the number of manufacturing jobs in countries including Brazil have declined by some 20 percent, he pointed out. "And one of the largest losers of manufacturing jobs has been China," Miklovic added. "We like to pick on China and say that all of these jobs are going to China, but they're losing jobs in manufacturing as well."

The reason for the job losses? Miklovic summed it up in one word: automation. Through automation, he said, "we are really doing a good job of improving the productivity of people."

...preventing certain giant corporations (like Walmart) in to displace small/locally owned business.

Evidence to the contrary is here and here.

by Twba on 11/03/2007 03:18:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Awesome, thank you (none / 0)

Reminds me of people who say "who cares how much CO2 humand produce, it's occurs naturally".

So what if there is an increasing level of automation?  That means we're simply making the situation worse by shipping jobs to "other countries".

Actually though, my favorite part is that you referenced a guy who wrote an article back in 2003.

And it just so happens he's since been debunked:

http://monster.typepad.com/ monsterblog/2007/02/the_sta te_of_ma.html

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/05/2007 01:43:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Will the circle ever be broken (none / 0)
And your debunking is courtesy of a partisan outfit.

by Twba on 11/05/2007 02:02:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As opposed to? (none / 0)

As opposed to heads of corporations (or corporate lobbyists) who themselves ship jobs overseas?  It's almost as if certain people have a vested interest in making people *think* that everything is fine here...nah, that'd be too obvious, wouldn't it?

And when you have old school liberals like Thom Hartmann and old school conservatives like Pat Buchanan coming to much the same conclusion on an issue, you have to stop and really consider it.  Certain issues are so logical that they trump partisan bickingering, and this is one of them.  

How else could you explain recent polls showing that even a majority of republicans think "free trade" is not necessarily a good thing? 

I don't see progressives licking their chops waiting to rake in the dollars that will roll in if Jobs here are protected...do you?

Again, all else being equal, you always have to look at the vest interests, and or potential vested interests.  Just like with global warming, the people fighting against it have a LOT more money and power to lose than the people saying it's a real issue. 

And that's generally a good guide on issues when you're not necessarily an expert in any given field (evolutionary biology, climatology, an economist, etc.). 

by Tom Hanc on 11/05/2007 02:13:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Economics Professors (none / 0)
How else could you explain recent polls showing that even a majority of republicans think "free trade" is not necessarily a good thing?

Most Republicans, like most Democrats, don't know anything about economics.

And that's generally a good guide on issues when you're not necessarily an expert in any given field (evolutionary biology, climatology, an economist, etc.).

Why don't we just consult the experts?

About two thirds of economics professors vote Democratic. In other social sciences and humanities, the vast majority of professors vote Democratic. So we should expect professors to favor Democratic policy positions. But there is one issue that professors, right and left, seem to agree on: It is good to let Americans and people of other countries trade freely.

The Club for Growth has organized a free trade petition signed by 1,028 economists. Truly, this voice represents economics. Many of the economists who signed the petition are on the left. Many are libertarians. Many are conservatives. Like the case against slavery, the case for free trade crosses ideological lines.

by Twba on 11/05/2007 02:34:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's funny you mention that (none / 0)

At the university level, teachers are generally considered to be liberal, with economics professors being the exception, experitentially.  Then again according to your Fair And Balanced article 2/3 of these professors are flaming liberals, which is interesting, except that I didn't see any footnote regarding that particular figure.

But I did see *this* which sums up how neutral the source is (since you raised that issue previously) "Keep government out of the way of two individuals who want to trade, though citizens of different countries".

Yes, clearly a reasonable voice on the issue with no agenda (yes, your sarcasm meter just exploded, let me know if you need the number to a good repair shop).

That "expert" was someone who stopped drinking water and apparently only drinks the Tom Friedman Kool-Aid.  He makes broad, idealistic statements about how wonderful trade is which would be fine *if* he had backed it up with pragmatic examples.

I totally agree, free trade kicks ass for large, multinational corporations.  And hell, even us middle class types get to enjoy a cheap DVD player or PC from time to time.

But overall we're getting screwed because of de facto maximum wage laws created by insourcing (low skill jobs) and outsourcing (high end jobs).  Let's see, do I care more about cheap electronics and toys (and other things I generally don't *need*) or do I care about being able to afford food, gas, insurance, housing and so on?

PS---There's nothing "free" about the fact that 87% of workers had pensions in 1983 compared to 37% as of 2005 (for example).

And there's also nothing "free" about led-tainted toys and plates and poisonous pet food (if only we hadn't underfunded and ignored those pesky government regulations, eh?). 

by Tom Hanc on 11/05/2007 02:54:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Footnotes (none / 0)
...which is interesting, except that I didn't see any footnote regarding that particular figure.

Data reported here indicates that the author was not lying about the political ideology of faculty. By the way, where are the footnotes regarding all the figures used in this essay?

by Twba on 11/05/2007 04:05:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice (none / 0)

He has several links within the article actually, but as I've said before, we can post dueling articles all day and it will prove very little.

The bottom line of the pragmatic issues are all in my previous post (WRT de facto maximum wage as well as the relative irrelevance of *non*essential goods being made cheaper due to outsourcing, etc). 

by Tom Hanc on 11/05/2007 04:50:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice (none / 0)
He has several links within the article actually, but as I've said before, we can post dueling articles all day and it will prove very little.

Dueling links and quotes can get boring after a while.

You complained that I quoted an economist published by the Minneapolis Fed. The Fed is not a think tank. It can find itself in big trouble if it relies on bogus research, because bad monetary policy has serious repercussions. Don't assume that just because an outside economist's research is linked by a conservative think tank, the research is wrong.

You linked to a report generated by a partisan think tank about automation and manufacturing employment. If you're going to complain about other's sources, be careful of your own.

Thom Hartmann claims that Smoot-Hawley "had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians)" but was a good thing overall. How many historians do you know who agree with that? Better yet, how many economists agree with that? I know of no economist who endorses that statement. An admittedly less than thorough google search found one guy who wrote "1.4 percent at most." Is he the only historian Thom consulted?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Smoot-Hawley is the sole cause of the Great Depression. There is plenty of blame to go around, including to the Fordney-McCumber Tariff. But no matter how you cut it, Smoot-Hawley was far more devastating than Thom Hartmann is willing to admit. For that reason alone, Hartmann's essay should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

He's brilliant, and he always provides historical perspective and an in depth analysis.  His show could be considered auditing university level courses on history, politics and economics (to some that's boring but to me it's awesome).

I hope you're doing more than just auditing Thom's class. Question Thom's statements. Question everyone's statements. Thom gives a very one-sided telling of history and economics. Be sure to seek out other sides of the story, and don't think there are only two sides or you'll miss out on a lot.

by Twba on 11/07/2007 12:57:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0)

I don't only listen to Thom Hartmann.  Obviously I also listen to Cenk, enjoy watching PBS and listening to NPR and my favorite political TV show is the Mclaughlin Group.

In fact, they had a great episode last week where the guests (and Mclaughlin himself) talked about how shaky our economy is and how massive trade deficits (yay free trade!) is killing the value of the dollar and the negative impacts.

Potential recession (and even depression) were concerns that were raised, and of the 5 people talking, only 1 (Mrs. Clift) could be considered to be a "liberal".

So yeah, when we have conservative economic policies in place (low tax rates, "free trade", union busting, deregulation) and the economy is getting to be quite scary, I'm not going to *have* listen to Thom Hartmann.

I can see everything for myself, unless someone wants to argue that the economy is tanking *in spite* of the conservative policies that have comprised the last 26 years or so.   No amount of economic *theory* changes the practical reality of the situation.

 

by Tom Hanc on 11/07/2007 06:15:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank Canada (none / 0)

We must be getting a lot of help from Canadian investment, now that their loonies and toonies are stronger than our dollars for the first time in over 30 years.  Guess you better hug a Canadian today and say "thank you." 

by OneHitKill on 11/07/2007 08:38:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dietary deficiency (none / 0)
I don't only listen to Thom Hartmann.  Obviously I also listen to Cenk, enjoy watching PBS and listening to NPR and my favorite political TV show is the Mclaughlin Group.

That's neither a broad nor deep buffet of brain food. It's no wonder you're intellectually starved.

by Twba on 11/09/2007 07:26:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My man years can beat up yours (none / 0)

The mainstream press provides all the right-leaning contrast most of us can stand.  By "Matthews," are you talking about Chris? 

Oh my.

by OneHitKill on 11/09/2007 08:46:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Healthy Diet (none / 0)
I consume a wide variety of news, analysis and opinion. That's the only way to be an informed citizen.

by Twba on 11/09/2007 10:09:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cheap (none / 0)
You went out of your way to set a cheap trap...

This is not a cheap trap. It's a cheap set up so the regulars here can make jokes about cannabis while possibly discussing liberty and the state's role in legislating brain chemistry.

I also have a cheap set up for jokes about octogenarian hereditary monarchs greeting one another while a military band plays theme music for an evil empire. No one took the bait in the Darth Abdullah set up.

by Twba on 11/03/2007 06:42:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maui Wowie (none / 0)
I assume your a libertarian of some type. By your comment I also assume your for decriminalization of drugs, no restrictions on abortion, gambling that sort of thing. Care to elaborate?

by MRFred on 11/02/2007 01:24:05 PM EST

Forgot (none / 0)
I only ask because unlike some of our bretheren here on TYT I dont want to put words in you mouth...

by MRFred on 11/02/2007 01:25:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
brethren this (none / 0)
put words in your mouth? What bull shit all people do is READ THE FUCKING POSTS and make up thier own minds.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 01:42:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Excuse me (none / 0)
Are you trying to start something here? I dont recall pissing in your Wheaties. Maybe you should take your own  advice and "READ THE FUCKING POSTS".

by MRFred on 11/02/2007 01:57:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sorry (none / 0)
LOL true I should... sorry...

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 02:51:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Panama Red (none / 0)
I am for legalization of drugs. I've said it before.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 03:39:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)
I agree,

by MRFred on 11/03/2007 09:24:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What is the point of this post? (none / 0)

"A liberal opposes criminalization of marijuana. John Edwards is illiberal."

Your logic escapes me.  Do you suppose all liberals are in favor of decriminalization of marijuana?  Since when?  

by bfaul on 11/02/2007 01:24:07 PM EST

WAIT (none / 0)
But twa says he/she  is a "classic liberal" lol..

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 01:44:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Liberal (none / 0)
Do you suppose all liberals are in favor of decriminalization of marijuana?

If you're in favor of criminalization of a victimless crime like marijuana possession, you're not nearly as liberal as you think.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 03:47:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh Leotard (none / 0)
If you are so bored.. then run along and poke pins in your voodoo doll  ..

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 04:00:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Boredom (none / 0)
...druggies and their "issues" bore me.

Would you have said the same thing during Prohibition? Defending liberty usually involves small, boring battles. First, they came for the druggies, and I did not speak out...

by Twba on 11/02/2007 04:49:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
Alcohol is legal, but we still hold people accountable when they get drunk and burn the house down. Marijuana should be treated no differently.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 05:20:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 0)
You're exactly right.

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 05:28:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
15 (none / 0)
As if it's hard to get for the average 15 year old.

by acroso on 11/02/2007 05:31:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
house (none / 0)

"druggie gets fucked up and sets his house on fire"

 

The house is a poor example. You have every right to burn your own house down if you want to. You might be fined if you didn't have a burning permit, but that is by city ordinance, and it’s probably a civil offense rather than a criminal even if they had that statute.

by acroso on 11/02/2007 05:34:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Trolling the troll (none / 0)
You have every right to burn your own house down if you want to.

You have every right to evict freeloaders from your uterus if you want to.

Proposed amendment to Godwin's law: As a comment thread grows longer the probability that it will devolve into an abortion argument approaches one.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 06:38:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
no (none / 0)

" You have every right to evict freeloaders from your uterus if you want to."

 

Not if you brought it into life by your own volition .

by acroso on 11/02/2007 11:56:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Count me in (none / 0)
Count me in on that too although I didn't buy them myself. But for some reason they're mine.

by acroso on 11/03/2007 02:38:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
own vs have (none / 0)

Well owning firearms and having firearms are two entirely different things.

 

One probably requires you to be in some sort of gun database the liberals designed to keep track of us now days.

by acroso on 11/03/2007 10:02:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ahem (none / 0)

Who is big into cameras, wiretaps and databases these days?

I would rather be in a gun database than an everyone database. Courtesy of the phone companies of course.

by z1p101 on 11/03/2007 10:11:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
google (none / 0)
Don't worry, google has all your porn searches for the last 20 years stored in an Iphone somewhere.

by acroso on 11/04/2007 02:43:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And...? (none / 0)
There's nothing embarrassing or incriminating about using Google to search for porn.  Isn't that what Google was designed for in the first place?

by OneHitKill on 11/04/2007 04:18:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes Yes Yes! (none / 0)

Thanks for proving TWBAs point....the right to choose

" You have every right to evict freeloaders from your uterus if you want to."

Not if you brought it into life by your own volition . Acroso

vo·li·tion Listen to the pronunciation of volitionPronunciation: \vō-ˈli-shən, və-\ Function:noun Etymology:from Latin vol- (stem of velle to will, wish) + -ition-, -itio (as in Latin position-, positio position) — more at will
1: an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made 2: the power of choosing or determining : will

I guess those Verbal Advantage tapes are working after all.

by MRFred on 11/03/2007 09:23:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Choose (none / 0)
Choose to let a guy have sex with you not kill a child.

by acroso on 11/03/2007 06:04:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've got it... (none / 0)
I figured it out...your one of Bushes leech writers!

by MRFred on 11/04/2007 09:34:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dont forget the photoshop fetus pictures ! (none / 0)

Corallary to Godwins Law:As a comment thread grows longer the probability that it will either;

  1. devolve into an abortion argument
  2. result inthe posting numerous photos hoped picture of " fetuses
  3. result in the "revelation" of discredited and amateurish "constitutional" arguments against the womans right to chose.
approaches one.

by MRFred on 11/03/2007 09:12:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Golfaholic (none / 0)
I have a job and a debilitating addiction to golf. I shot my worst round in years, yesterday. I put a ball in the hole in only four strokes on a 550 yard par 5. Unfortunately, it was the second ball I teed up. The first was driven deep into the backyard of a McMansion. That wasn't the only time I heard a lot of laughing behind my back as I walked to the next tee. Maybe I should visit a driving range once in a while.

Legalizing dope? It would be fine with me, so long as we can keep it out of the hands of children. If legal pot was easier for a 15 year old to acquire than illegal pot, then I would be against legalization of pot.

Maybe times have changed, but it was far easier to buy reefer at a dealer's house than a case of beer at a convenience store, when I was fifteen. [And we walked uphill to school in knee deep snow.] Nothing will keep every fifteen year old from getting his hands on what he wants, but legalization won't make it any easier, in my opinion.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 05:52:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 0)

You're right again.  But people will argue that *of course* it will be easier to get if it's legal, without providing any evidence to suppor the claim, even experiential evidence.

by Tom Hanc on 11/02/2007 07:11:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Apparently it isn't (none / 0)


"He needs to grow up, get married, get a mortgage, and get boring like the rest of us."

Spoken with the unmistakeable bitterness of a man who feels like maybe he settled down too early.  I used to work with a guy who talked the same way...he had two kids by the time he was 27, and every day I saw him, he made sure to remind me of two things:

1)  He life sucked.

2)  It was in my best interest to make my life resemble his as closely as possible.

The guy wouldn't have made a very good salesman, I'll say that much.  "This vacuum cleaner is a piece of shit.  Buy it."

by OneHitKill on 11/03/2007 03:04:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yikes (none / 0)
"He life sucked?"  No.  HIS life sucked.  Damn, I really am a "Japtard."

by OneHitKill on 11/03/2007 03:04:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One more edit (none / 0)
And it turns out his second kid was born when he was 24.  Okay.  No more story.

by OneHitKill on 11/03/2007 03:36:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yep, it's pretty bad (none / 0)

You aren't kidding, my friend.  It's not so much just living here as it is listening to goofy English at work EVERY DAY.  The predictable effect over time is that I start making the same slips that my students make, which is really embarassing.  Being an ESL teacher can actually make one's English worse.

For example, I used to use the completely normal phrase "negative preconception."  Now it takes all the effort I can muster not to accidentally use the corrupted loan phrase "minus image."  That's to say nothing of the dropped articles and incorrect prepositions I am bombarded with on a daily basis, all of which defy me to adopt them as my own mannerisms.

Nerve also played a big part, and I'll definitely help myself out with notes next time.  Thanks for the advice.

by OneHitKill on 11/03/2007 08:11:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Old (none / 0)
You don't want to be the old guy in the bar.

by Twba on 11/03/2007 11:44:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL! (none / 0)
That fucking guy looks ridiculous, hes the one me and my friends would laugh at. Shirt unbuttoned down to his belly button.. hair plugs  botox... trying to pretend he is my age.. what a dork.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/03/2007 12:43:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And you are a classic.. (none / 0)
Ask if I missed you or if I care.  

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 06:26:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Glad it bothered you (none / 0)
Does his /her job involve Golfing? Cheerleading lets see... Im sure I have seen some ignorant ass troll from Texas doing exactly the same thing..  You and Leotard are such size queens... tiny this and tiny that.. is that in indication of your size?  That was a rhetorical question.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 06:34:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Poor silly troll... (none / 0)
You confuse wishful thinking with reality. As do most conservative wing nuts. This case is no different . He/she has not prevailed recently in any way shape or form, and being compared to Dick Chaney is something I'm sure a "classic" liberal would not be to proud of. Got any more insights chief?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/02/2007 07:09:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
California (none / 0)
Smell that smell? It's the smell of freedom.

Feel free to make jokes about the "Price Is Wrong."

by Twba on 11/02/2007 07:58:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dick Cheneys Style (none / 0)
TWBA shoots lawyers in the face? I suppose I would knuckles under or concede with a face full of bird shot.


 

by MRFred on 11/03/2007 09:32:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)

100%

"His debating style is similar to that of Dick Cheney. Quiet. Controlled. Understated. Confident."

His posts also do not involve episodes of monkeys flying from his butt followed by a "Karl Rove is going to kick your ass" statement. 

by z1p101 on 11/03/2007 10:36:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken on Twba (you know what i mean) (none / 0)


His debating style is similar to that of Dick Cheney. Quiet. Controlled. Understated. Confident.

Drunk.  Vulgar.  Shotgun to the face. 

by OneHitKill on 04/17/2008 09:54:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LMFAO (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 04/18/2008 12:08:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
still kind of a pointless (none / 0)

"you're not nearly as liberal as you think."

I never claimed to be a liberal.  I don't really much care whether someone thinks of me as liberal or not.

Saying someone is or is not liberal based on one of 100 issues is kind of pointless.  That's what I mean when I say your post has no point.  I find the terms Liberal and Conservative lousy approximations for what people really are, because they are usually a complicated mixture of both.

BTW, I'm definitely in favor of decriminalization of marijuana.  I think it's stupid to spend resources fighting the use of an herb that is far more harmless than alcohol. 

by bfaul on 11/02/2007 04:55:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
criminalized (none / 0)
Isn't it criminalized to keep the libs in jail so they aren't out voting?

by acroso on 11/02/2007 05:19:34 PM EST

Good one (none / 0)
Acroso, sometimes your comments really are funny.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 05:23:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Point, Counterpoint (none / 0)
Ya I think I'd be for legalization but I really don't like the idea of the liberals on a a jail break. Next thing you know we'd be living in a Communist Pan-American state. Better to keep it illegal with stiff penalties and long jail terms.

by acroso on 11/02/2007 05:38:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good to hear (none / 0)
Few things Edwards has said or done have inspired such respect for him in me.  Now all he has to do is endorse a proposal to tax the newly legalized marijuana heavily, and he'll be my new favorite.

by OneHitKill on 11/02/2007 08:22:20 PM EST

Edwards (none / 0)
He said those gay people make him uncomfortable and he opposes gay rights and pot smoking both,

by acroso on 11/02/2007 08:46:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
damn it (none / 0)
Guess he wont be coming to thanksgiving dinner at YOUR house huh?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/03/2007 01:02:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
who (none / 0)

who Edwards?

He might be secretly gay like those Republican sexcapades deals. 

by acroso on 11/03/2007 02:36:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Selective hearing (none / 0)
Watch the video again, OneHitKillerBuzz. It's Chris Dodd who defends liberty and advocates decriminalization. Pretty Boy is all for continuation of current stupidity.

by Twba on 11/03/2007 06:11:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whoa...there's a video? (none / 0)
Duuuuuude.  Sorry about that.  Sometimes drugs cause you to round things a-switch.

by OneHitKill on 11/03/2007 07:08:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Duuuuuuuuuuuude (none / 0)
Sorry, I'm known for embedding links with no explanation for where they lead. I provided a link to transcript and video. I didn't know how long the video would still be on YouTube.

by Twba on 11/03/2007 07:14:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Edwards (none / 0)

Why do you like Edwards better than Kucinich?

 

Kuchinich 

 

 

by acroso on 11/02/2007 10:53:05 PM EST

Selective Outrage of the Intellectually Impaired (none / 0)

It seems one man's baby killer is another man's conservative ally. Consider this statement:

You have every right to evict freeloaders from your uterus if you want to.

and this response to the thread;

I was so looking forward to being the ONLY anti-abortion Conservative in this forum. You're going to have to distance yourself from me somehow. Preferably to my left....

  • Did I see any photoshop fetuses? No
  • Did I see a tome of outraged hyperbole about murder or baby killers? No.
  • Did I see a "toid" , "tard" or  threats and bombast? No.
  • Did I see volumes of puerile pre-law constitutional dissertations unfounded in fact. No.
  • Did I see a questionnaire? No.

This demonstrates that "proud conservatives" have selective memory and a perverse set of situational ethics where they can overlook what they contend is the most egregious SCOTUS ruling ever conveyed and the destruction of Americas moral fiber by the evil "left" when it suits their puposes.

One can only conclude that over the top outrage is only reserved for trolling and not of any true moral or ethical convictions.

As expected (and predicted.)

by MRFred on 11/04/2007 09:31:31 AM EST

Loren (none / 0)
Please tone down the animosity. Your viewpoint will never get a fair hearing when accompanied by strong invective.

by Twba on 11/04/2007 12:39:38 PM EST

The Real John Edwards | 137 comments (137 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: