Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate


Dow Jones GOP Debate 2011

(Click for full size.)

The GOP debate in New Hampshire began 8pm on 13 June 2011. The various candidates for 2012’s Presidential run gave their views.

The next morning, the Dow Jones surges up +120 points after the constant slide down since the start of May.

Coincidence?

Compare against the kind of Down graph Obama generates as well as this extensive collection. It’s not an isolated case.

In Rush’s words:

Right now, folks, there’s not a Republican on that stage that wouldn’t do a better job for this country than what’s currently being done as president.

America is rejoicing at the slew of alternatives to the disastrous Obama administration train-wreck.

Tags: , ,

111 Responses to “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”

  1. » Stock Market Bursts Upward After GOP Debate Tea Party News Articles Says:

    […] Your Ad Here &#86ia BURNING HOT. var AdBrite_Title_Color = '0000FF'; var AdBrite_Text_Color = '000000'; var […]

  2. Ron Says:

    The Street

    Dow Finishes Up 123 Points
    By Chao Deng
    6/14/11

    Stocks closed with solid gains Tuesday as the latest round of data convinced Wall Street to put aside anxieties about the U.S. economy hitting a soft patch.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 123 points, or 1%, to finish at at 12,076. The S&P 500 closed up 16 points, or 1.3%, at 1288, and the Nasdaq Composite jumped 39 points, or 1.5%, to settle at 2679.

    Better than expected U.S. economic data, led by a steadiness in retail sales, as well as strong output data from China spurred the rally, which comes with the major equity indices mired in a six-week losing streak.

    What a friend we have in Google…

  3. Jamie Says:

    Honestly, I pity America if any of the current GOP candidates win. They are all lacklustre and some are outright pathetic wafflers.

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    So, Palin ’12?

  5. wits0 Says:

    Liberals Exit Stage Left

    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/06/liberals-exit-stage-left.html

  6. Ron Says:

    Palin’s 15 minutes were up two years ago. She is now the least popular of all the GOP candidates. In fact a WP-ABC poll conducted in March revealed that two-thirds of US voters “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president.

  7. Ron Says:

    God Caught Backing Multiple GOP Candidates for President

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Good news everyone! Soon we will have a healthcare systems just as effective as the British one!

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/05/the-victims-of-nationalized-health-care/

  9. Ron Says:

    The world health report 2000 – Health systems: improving performance (Annexe statistique
    pdf, 378kb: Table 10)

    1 France
    2 Italy
    3 San Marino
    4 Andorra
    5 Malta
    6 Singapore
    7 Spain
    8 Oman
    9 Austria
    10 Japan
    11 Norway
    12 Portugal
    13 Monaco
    14 Greece
    15 Iceland
    16 Luxembourg
    17 Netherlands
    18 United Kingdom
    19 Ireland
    20 Switzerland
    21 Belgium
    22 Colombia
    23 Sweden
    24 Cyprus
    25 Germany
    26 Saudi Arabia
    27 United Arab Emirates
    28 Israel
    29 Morocco
    30 Canada
    31 Finland
    32 Australia
    33 Chile
    34 Denmark
    35 Dominica
    36 Costa Rica
    37 United States of America

    …despite the fact that the USA has the world’s highest per capita expenditure on health care.

  10. eternal Says:

    Scott Thong,

    Your knowledge of economy is appalling really, irresponsible blogging and a little of a braggart to say you are leading neo-con of Malaysia. You are not even in the same league with people like Ron Paul. Humility is never your strength, as you never replied to solid empirical evidence, you just pretend that it is invisible and hope everybody sees it the same way as you. Although I have got to give you some credit, you did not delete the arguments that should have made you humble. But then again, you might not feel the need to feel humble or may not understand what it means.

    And because you cannot face economic facts, you decided to side-track to healthcare….And for somebody who critisizes the healthcare system in UK, I am shocked to know that you did not realise that there was empirical evidence that US has worse of healthcare system than in UK, still believing in whatever nonsense that comes out from ‘whatever blogs’. Again, you seem to have conveniently overlook.

    I hope being egotistical is not something you teach to your students and want them to emulate.

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    Kah kah kah kah! You call it egotistical, but where I call myself an authority on any matter.

    First off, if you read my About page you’d know why I call myself ‘Leading Malaysian Neocon’. It’s not that I’m the best, most influential, most popular politician around… It’s simply because the general populace of Malaysia is so heavily Muslim and/or anti-American, my rather mild right wing views are the appallingly neo-Conservative by comparison!

    Secondly, this post is meant to be tongue in cheek. Soooooo sorry for not putting /sarc everywhere, okay?

    If you want rather more serious economic graphs, see Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup and Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy.

    And as for your ‘side-tracking to healthcare’ remark… DO NOT KNOW IF STUPID, OR JUST TROLLING. I only mention healthcare after a commentor mentioned other non-economy related items.

    My healthcare-related post is actually at What’s So Bad About Socialism-Style Free Healthcare?.

    Enjoy!

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    I almost forgot…

    Ron Paul? As the epitome of conservatism?

    Ron ‘wouldn’t have killed Osama’ Paul?

    Ron ‘9/11 was an inside job’ Paul?

    Ron ‘Polled second last after New hampshire debate’ Paul?

    Yeah, I’m sure he’s typical of Tea Partiers and extreme right wingers who mainly comprise pacifists, truthers and Islamophilic multiculturalists /sarc

    When you mention Ron Paul, is what’s in your head the kind of Conservatism like actual Convervatives believe and practise?

    Or is what’s in your head the distorted, neverneverland, wannabe ‘Conservatism’ that liberals like to see in ‘moderate’ GOP candidates who then go on to lose elections? (e.g. John McCain)

  13. Ron Says:

    ” I only mention healthcare after a commentor mentioned other non-economy related items.”

    Non-sequitur alert.

    The fact still remains: you introduced a topic — Dow Jones Surges after 2011 GOP Debate — which was quickly abandoned when presented with empirical data that countered those claims, and then repeated the process twice more with the Palin and healthcare arguments.

    Now, after being called out for engaging in duplicitous behavior, the criticism is met with the tepid excuse that it was all just a good snark, no seriousness intended.

  14. eternal Says:

    Scott thong, you have to learn to be more focused, you do know that your are extremely scatty with your thoughts don’t you?

    1) You have proven my point, non of your comments are related to “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”. Does it? You went on to meander about Obama’s economic policy, but nothing to do with “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”.

    let me remind you, your initial argument was only

    “The GOP debate in New Hampshire began 8pm on 13 June 2011. The various candidates for 2012′s Presidential run gave their views.

    The next morning, the Dow Jones surges up +120 points after the constant slide down since the start of May.

    Coincidence?”

    I am not seeing a great deal of economic opinion in there… it is like saying there is a hurricaine in florida, because some blogger farted from the other side of the planet… common sense indeed

    2) You still haven’t proven that British healthcare is worse than American. You haven’t proven empirical statistic PRESENTED to you wrong. The only evidence you have is yourself.

    3) Either you lazy to read all the links and evidence stack up against you, or you are conveniently suffering from scotoma only gleefully indulge on your post and have a knack of referencing yourself. Intellectual incest I see. And you don’t see yourself as egotistical…

    4) Don’t get offended, because, I am like you “Secondly, this post is meant to be tongue in cheek. Soooooo sorry for not putting /sarc everywhere, okay?” Afterall you are a teacher and you are an excellent role model of being irresponsible of your own opinions.
    :)

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    You have proven my point, non of your comments are related to “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”. Does it? You went on to meander about Obama’s economic policy, but nothing to do with “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”.

    Dude/dudette, if I post about Ice Cream: Which Flavor is Bestest? and a commentor starts trolling about Nintendo Wii-U, what do you expect me to do – compare remakes of classic games to ice cream toppings?

    I am not seeing a great deal of economic opinion in there… it is like saying there is a hurricaine in florida, because some blogger farted from the other side of the planet… common sense indeed

    Well, DUH. Didn’t I just mention this was as snarky, tongue-in-cheek post?

    Here’s another along those lines:

    Obama Ends Russia-Georgia War by Telling Russia to Condemn Itself in the U.N.

    You still haven’t proven that British healthcare is worse than American. You haven’t proven empirical statistic PRESENTED to you wrong. The only evidence you have is yourself.

    In the first place, ‘proving’ a proposition like this is nigh impossible due to countless criteria and subjectivity of the conclusions. What parameters do we use? What weight to give each of them? Cost effectiveness? Recidivism rate? Customer satisfaction? Fatality rate?

    That said, my basic premise is along the lines of “Do you get old people left to die of dehydration in the American healthcare system the way you do under the British NHS?” For me, the greatest weight is on quality of service.

    Either you lazy to read all the links and evidence stack up against you, or you are conveniently suffering from scotoma only gleefully indulge on your post and have a knack of referencing yourself. Intellectual incest I see. And you don’t see yourself as egotistical…

    Oh, I just absolutely love it when someone comes here and tells me “Don’t be so arrogant and egotistical!”… In a very arrogant and egotistical way. Almost as good as when someone goes “Don’t be so judgmental!” in a very judgmental way.

    Perhaps if you yourself bothered to read links, you might find that I self-reference because I feel my previous postings adequately answer your question. Commenter Ron is around here somewhere, one of his answers was to merely self-reference an old comment he made. How is that an invalid response?

  16. eternal Says:

    1) For somebody who is so opinionated about about healthcare but has absolutely NO knowledge of what parameters to use to weigh them sound a bit idiotic to me. All you have is arbitrary groundless assessment, but you claim to be ignorant about quantitative assessment… And you justify your ignorance by claiming its impossible to be informed (oxymoronic, don’t you think?)….

    2) You still have not given me your assessment “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”. Ahem, you realise that you are the one who compared remakes of classic games to ice cream toppings. It was you the one, who talk about Obama to begin with not me.

    3) “Do you get old people left to die of dehydration in the American healthcare system ” Hmmm, what about those who are not covered? Wouldn’t they just die outside of the healthcare system conveniently leaving the healthcare system spotless?

    4) Chill out, don’t get to uptight. For all you know, all these hullabaloo can just be “snarky, tongue-in-cheek posts”. Perfect way to get scot-free. :)

    Have a nice day.

  17. eternal Says:

    PS: just let me remind you are the one who compared remakes of classic games to ice cream toppings. You brought up obama, not me.

    “If you want rather more serious economic graphs, see Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup and Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy.”
    :D

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    The fact still remains: you introduced a topic — Dow Jones Surges after 2011 GOP Debate — which was quickly abandoned when presented with empirical data that countered those claims, and then repeated the process twice more with the Palin and healthcare arguments. – Ron

    Whoops, didn’t notice your comment till now.

    Hey, you gave a good citation, then I responded to Jamie, then you retorted with a jab at Palin unpopularity and brought in God. I kinda went with the flow from there.

    Honestly, I didn’t intend my post with seriousness, so your serious, factual response was a moot point.

    Oh and see immediately below response to eternal.

  19. Scott Thong Says:

    For somebody who is so opinionated about about healthcare but has absolutely NO knowledge of what parameters to use to weigh them sound a bit idiotic to me

    It’s a rhetorical question. I’ve already stated what meter counts most in my book. So what counts in yours?

    You still have not given me your assessment “Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate”.

    Okay, okay – here’s my assessment.

    It is in all likelihood total coincidence that the GOP debate was the night before a surge in the Dow Jones. But it made for an interesting graphic, and I love interesting graphics – especially of graphs. I posted knowing it wasn’t exactly a solid, empirically based proposition although I did not specifically state so in my original post. I assumed it would be clear enough that I was not staking much on my claim. You’ll just have to take my word for it, I have no substantial proof of this.

    Ahem, you realise that you are the one who compared remakes of classic games to ice cream toppings. It was you the one, who talk about Obama to begin with not me.

    My apologies for not explaining the concept of analogies in depth to you. How terribly irrespomsible of me.

    Hmmm, what about those who are not covered? Wouldn’t they just die outside of the healthcare system conveniently leaving the healthcare system spotless?

    If you buy a fancy house and stock it full of highly flammable priceless paintings, neglect to buy home and fire insurance, and your house burns down – is that THE MAN’s fault?

    Chill out, don’t get to uptight. For all you know, all these hullabaloo can just be “snarky, tongue-in-cheek posts”. Perfect way to get scot-free.

    Please do tell me if you want me to be more serious. I’m assuming you’re trolling rather than serious yourself, see, so am not really investing much effort into my responses.

    “If you want rather more serious economic graphs, see Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup and Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy.”

    I used that as an example, not because of Obama per se, but because of the economic-y graphs in it. Which, oh wow and surprise, what this post comprises.

    You DID actually click the link to at least skim through it, didn’t you? Mr ‘Either you lazy to read all the links and evidence stack up against you’?

  20. eternal Says:

    1) I did click on the links on “Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup and Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy.” But nothing is at all related to Dow Jones going up after GOP debate. I prefer to be focus not scatty. But then again, now you did admit there is a TOTAL COINCINDENCE. There is a substantial proof that you are hypothesis is wrong though. Here is the excerpt that you conveniently missed:

    “Stocks closed with solid gains Tuesday as the latest round of data convinced Wall Street to put aside anxieties about the U.S. economy hitting a soft patch.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 123 points, or 1%, to finish at at 12,076. The S&P 500 closed up 16 points, or 1.3%, at 1288, and the Nasdaq Composite jumped 39 points, or 1.5%, to settle at 2679.

    Better than expected U.S. economic data, led by a steadiness in retail sales, as well as strong output data from China spurred the rally, which comes with the major equity indices mired in a six-week losing streak.”

    2) It is difficult to know when you are more serious (as you hide behind the veil of being snarky and sarcastic).

    3) Meter counts to you? I can give you lots of links and I had in the past, that contradict you but unfortunately you are going to bash them as liberal MSM as you always do or conveniently overlook. You yourself admit that there are trolls out there (who inflated your meter count?!?!), you don’t take trolls seriously, yet your meter count is also dependent on trolls, so I take it that you don’t take yourself seriously? You have weird sense of symbiotic relationship with parasites, pushing the limits of oxymoronic.

    Although I have to admit you are smart to use populist keywords/buzzwords to increase your meter count, but populism does not equate to good content, it is just another form of well done advertising. I think you are in the wrong profession.

    4) Your anology of house insurance is irrelevant. Another good example of you potentially side-stepping the issue. Don’t you know that existing medical insurance provides a trade barrier to good medical practice? Any good capitalist frowns upon trade barrier no? Even people who can afford the bills are not getting their money’s worth. In US, medical professions get money from insurance firms (people covered by insurance). This existing trade barrier causes American healthcare system to be inefficient. Consumers don’t actually purchase medical service only insurance.

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    I did click on the links on “Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup and Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy.” But nothing is at all related to Dow Jones going up after GOP debate.

    Agreed, nothing on that page is directly related to this page. Nor did I claim that there was any relation. If you look back at the context, I simply mentioned that this page was not a very serious proposition, whereas an example of a more serious post was that one.

    There is a substantial proof that you are hypothesis is wrong though. Here is the excerpt that you conveniently missed:

    Are you still harping on about this? I just candidly admitted in a comment above (to Ron, who provided the data, not to you) that the data was good.

    It is difficult to know when you are more serious

    Fine, although I don’t usually do so, for every remark to you that is meant to be snide, I will add hashtags to them.

    The above was not meant to be snide, so no hashtags.

    Meter counts to you? I can give you lots of links and I had in the past, that contradict you but unfortunately you are going to bash them as liberal MSM as you always do or conveniently overlook. You yourself admit that there are trolls out there (who inflated your meter count?!?!), you don’t take trolls seriously, yet your meter count is also dependent on trolls, so I take it that you don’t take yourself seriously? You have weird sense of symbiotic relationship with parasites, pushing the limits of oxymoronic.

    By ‘meter count’ I actually was talking about what meter counts the most, with meter meaning measurement. Not the total number of hits my blog receives. Which come mostly from first-timers stumbling across my non-US political posts on chillies, Plants vs Zombies, Left 4 Dead comics and the like. The vast majority of visitors are still Malaysians, as can be seen from the flag counter on my main page.

    Don’t get me wrong, I highly value my regular commenters. They are a large part of what makes blogging fun. And good sparrers like Ron get me to open up my mind, increase my knowledge and sharpen my skills (and vice versa I hope). Some even manage to get me to change my views.

    But don’t overinflate your contribution to the hits counter.

    As for my ignoring links and citations, it really depends on the source. And personally I prefer to scrutinize the methodology rather than the source’s political leanings. It doesn’t matter if it’s Ann Coulter or Joy Behar citing something – if it’s proven true or false, so it is.

    For example, various studies purporting to show rising global temperatures. Rather than dismiss them out of hand (although I have plenty of justification to do so based on past examples of their shoddy standards), I point out the flaws in their work or assumptions (e.g. NASA temperature sensors located next to BBQ grills and air-conditioning hot air vents).

    And yes, I’ve gone into global warming territory whereas the discussion was on economics/healthcare, but this is just as an example here.

    Here’s another example that is not directly related to economics/healthcare/global warming, and also includes a jab at the Obamas and their sycophants: How did this person get voted as Vogue best dressed, Maxim 100 hottest women, and top 12 hottest politician’s wives?

    #snark

    Your anology of house insurance is irrelevant. Another good example of you potentially side-stepping the issue. Don’t you know that existing medical insurance provides a trade barrier to good medical practice? Any good capitalist frowns upon trade barrier no?

    Yes, and I support deregulation:

    1. Allow interstate competition between insurance companies.

    2. Allow insurance companies to incorporate in any state.

    3. Remove government regulation of insurance plans except for the usual laws applicable to all types of companies.

    Ann Coulter’s One Page Healthcare Plan

    That’s a link to my own posts again, which I deem relevant as it expresses my views on the subject matter.

  22. eternal Says:

    1) Pardon me, you mentioned what meter counts most when it comes to credibility, I might have missed it, as I recalled only questions from you and that you think measurement is nigh impossible…. Here is what you mentioned earlier

    “What parameters do we use? What weight to give each of them? Cost effectiveness? Recidivism rate? Customer satisfaction? Fatality rate?”

    Could you reiterate what criteria are important to you?

    2) On climate change. As far as I know, satellite imagery is not located beside a space BBQ. Just because of a few mistakes like the IPCC does not invalidate the whole premise. You made a few snarky comments here and there, it does not mean that your whole blog is all about being snarky, or does it? Here are the links

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/station-data/

    3) Competition is only fairer, when consumers are also given choices, no? As far as I know Obama encourages Health Insurance Exchange which offers purchasers of health insurance a variety of plans from different insurance providers. That should encourage a better free market system, no?

    But as far as I can recall, Bobby Jindal who is Lousiana’s Republican governor refused to create an exchange, while in Montana a Democratic governor faces an obstinate Republican legislature. It strikes to me as rather odd…

    On another note, from one of the link you sent me. It is not that UK wants to opt out of the current NHS system, because it is bad, rather the budget deficit it faces requires it to make drastic cuts. Sacrifices have to be made, which is unfortunate but necessary, but it doesn’t mean that the system is fundamentally flawed.

    4) Why would you assume that I overinflate your meter count? You are the one who claimed that there are Trolls out there, not me. Whether or not trolls overinflate your meter count is played out in your mind, never mine.

    If you have invested a bit more time being more courteous (as can be seen in gradual, more civilised approach in your rebuttals) rather than using buzzword like SUCKS in your blog, or Kah kah kah kah laughter, you could have perhaps, learnt much more.

  23. eternal Says:

    hmmm, you deleted my post (with all the data and the statistics included), either because there is an error with wordpress or because you cannot back up your credibility against mine, and the evidence I have showed you. It makes me doubt aout your ability to learn, or if you really learn anything from Ron (or merely using him in an attempt to rhetorically discredit me). I think you are suffering from a severe case of cognotive dissonance, as you have even resorted to censorship :). It doesn’t matter, fortunately I have already printscreen the evidence of our discussion…… Good luck in your ‘educational’ campaign. And thank you for your time, now I have an excellent piece of editorial for my editorial column with evidence.

  24. kesu Says:

    Sneak Preview of Mark Steyn’s New Book

    Mark Steyn, author of the New York Times bestseller “America Alone”, is back with his funniest and most brilliant book yet: After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.

    After America isn’t available until August 8th, but we’re offering you this exclusive excerpt now. For a sample of Steyn’s wickedly clever and devastatingly funny new book, read on….

    In 2010, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), described current U.S. deficits as “unsustainable.” On that everyone’s agreed. So let’s make them even more so!

    On assuming office, President Obama assured us, with a straight face, that his grossly irresponsible wastrel of a predecessor had taken the federal budget on an eight-year joyride. So the only way his sober, fiscally prudent successor could get things under control was to grab the throttle and crank it up to what Mel Brooks in Spaceballs (which seems the appropriate comparison) called “Ludicrous Speed.” Let’s head for the washed-out bridge, but at Obamacrous Speed!

    The Spendballs plans of the Obama administration took the average Bush deficit for the years 2001–2008 and doubled it, all the way to 2020. “We’ve got a big hole that we’re digging ourselves out of,” the president declared in 2011. Usually, when you’re in a hole, it’s a good idea to stop digging. But, seemingly, to get out of the Bush hole, we needed to dig a hole twice as deep for one-and-a-half times as long. And that’s according to the official projections of the president’s economics czar, Ms. Rose Colored-Glasses.

    By 2020, the actual hole will be so deep that even if you toss every Obama speech down it on double-spaced paper you still won’t be able to fill it up. In the spendthrift Bush days, federal spending as a proportion of GDP averaged 19.6 percent. That’s crazy. Obama’s solution was to attempt to crank it up to 25 to 30 percent as a permanent feature of life. That’s load up the suicide-bomber underpants and pass me the matches.

  25. Scott Thong Says:

    hmmm, you deleted my post (with all the data and the statistics included), either because there is an error with wordpress or because you cannot back up your credibility against mine, and the evidence I have showed you. It makes me doubt aout your ability to learn, or if you really learn anything from Ron (or merely using him in an attempt to rhetorically discredit me). I think you are suffering from a severe case of cognotive dissonance, as you have even resorted to censorship – eternal

    Again, you presume too much.

    Firstly, I assume you have spent little time commenting on WordPress, which often filters out multiple-link comments as spam.

    Secondly, whatever Ron has or has not accomplished here is known to him and anyone who has been closely following the comments – or is dedicated enough to browsing several years’ worth of back history.

    Go ahead with your printscreened bragalocious post, if you wish. Do invite as many readers here as you can, and let them judge whether or not I have grossly transgressed the boundaries of Teh Internets with my horrible post. #sarcasm

  26. Ron Says:

    Yes, and I support deregulation:

    1. Allow interstate competition between insurance companies.

    2. Allow insurance companies to incorporate in any state.

    3. Remove government regulation of insurance plans except for the usual laws applicable to all types of companies.

    All of which would violate the Tenth Amendment (State sovereignty) of the US Constitution — you know that ‘silly’ little piece of paper that teabaggers continuously remind everyone is the Holy Grail of American confederation.

    But that aside, let’s consider how things would play out even if individual states could set their own regulations. Insurance companies would eventually migrate to the state(s) with the most lax rules, forcing the states with more stringent guidelines to gradually relax them. And then it quickly becomes a race to the bottom: insurance policies offered at cut-rate prices (along with cut-rate coverage) to only the healthiest individuals, while the rest of the population pays exorbitant premiums, or faces disqualification from obtaining insurance altogether.

  27. Scott Thong Says:

    All of which would violate the Tenth Amendment (State sovereignty) of the US Constitution — you know that ‘silly’ little piece of paper that teabaggers continuously remind everyone is the Holy Grail of American confederation.

    You mean the way federal mandates on insurance violate the right of states to decide not to include sex change operations and make every customer pay to cover them?

    Or the way that every other business violates the Tenth Amendment by, you know, freely competing with one another across state lines?

    Oh wait… You must mean the way state sovereignity has been steamrolled over by Spendulus, Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, banning non-twisty lightbulbs, removing the Ten Commandments displays, and federal lawsuits against Arizona’s SB1070? (That last one will soon be a moot point, cos Obama’s superb handling of the economy is causing illegal immigrants to return to Mexico seeking the more plentiful jobs there. Yay Obama, I always knew you were a closet Amnesty opponent! /sarc)

    But hey, I already know your answer… Whatever libs decide should override state sovereignity/popular vote/the leglislative process, it’sto protect the basic rights of the citizen. Right?

    (By the way, I didn’t realize practitioners of obscure sexual practices that are usually only known to homosexuals were such strong proponents of the Constitution. Looks like we have some good candidates to join GOProud! /sarc

    But that aside, let’s consider how things would play out even if individual states could set their own regulations. Insurance companies would eventually migrate to the state(s) with the most lax rules, forcing the states with more stringent guidelines to gradually relax them. And then it quickly becomes a race to the bottom: insurance policies offered at cut-rate prices (along with cut-rate coverage) to only the healthiest individuals, while the rest of the population pays exorbitant premiums, or faces disqualification from obtaining insurance altogether.

    Methinks you are confusing the end results of a free market with the end results of a monopoly.

    To wit: Has what you described happened yet to Internet service providers, cellphone lines, discount markets, or any of the countless industries not subjected to the weight of cyclopean government regulations?

    Or has deregulation caused the different entities involved to compete with each other in a race to present the cheapest and best products and services to the customer?

    Because, I dunno, it’s kinda hard for every single one of dozens of mutually-antagonistic competing brands to form a cabalistic conspiracy (or UNION, zing!) against the common man without one or several members escaping the reserve to undercut the others.

    To wit again and citing Ann Coulter: Obama says the price of health insurance will come down if only it’s mandatory. It’s like the guy has never ordered food from a hotel before. When you have no choice, does the price go up or down?

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    Wait, why am I responding to Ron’s responses to my responses to eternal’s and paganbirdkeeper’s comments?

    Oh yeah. Cos it’s fun. Carry on then.

    keeper and ternal, don’t hesitate to respond to my response to your comment despite the above. Or even respond to my response to Ron’s response to my response to your comment.

  29. Scott Thong Says:

    Could you reiterate what criteria are important to you? – eternal

    On healthcare, by priority: Quality of service, number of patients who can receive treatment.

    Actually I may sound like a partisan extremist (okay, in many cases, I am)… But it’s often because I’m taking an opposite position to a commentor.

    I support a mix of public and private healthcare (as well as other services) which is practised in my home country. Those who want to peruse the free or virtually free government services can do so – they have to deal with the queues, dour customer service, blunt nurses and other indignities that come with the package. If they want to fork out $$$ for top line service at private clinics, they pay with their own cash.

    ———————

    On climate change.

    Just because of a few mistakes like the IPCC does not invalidate the whole premise.

    The problem here is twofold: It’s not just a few mistakes, it’s almost systemic. And the level of scrutiny before a study is accepted is so low that mistakes are not just permitted, they are almost encouraged (in order to fit the narrative that all the other climate science grant recipients are toting).

    Here is a partial list of just what I have bothered to blog:

    Climategates List – Shameful standards of scientific reporting!

    NASA Climate Scientists Are Blindo Morons – And So Are You If You Think Their Data Shows Global Warming and Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming – The NASA temperature sensors next to BBQs as mentioned

    Global Warming is Unfactual – Introductory list which includes admissions by top scientists that no warming in 15 years, debunking of claims the Arctic/Antarctic are melting and polar bears are drowning, questioning veracity of CO2 as cause of warming, and instances of record cold in recent years)

    ————————

    As far as I know Obama encourages Health Insurance Exchange which offers purchasers of health insurance a variety of plans from different insurance providers. That should encourage a better free market system, no?

    On the flip side of kicking people off their employer provided plans, taking away decisions from physicians and giving them to penny-pinching bureucrats, and forcing everyone to buy health insurance or be fined taxed fined taxed still deciding the terminology on this one, suffice to say you have to fork out $$$ if you don’t buy some.

    Sacrifices have to be made, which is unfortunate but necessary, but it doesn’t mean that the system is fundamentally flawed.

    An illustration:

    I buy over a restaurant. One day one, I make every single menu item FREE. You tell me what every passerby will do when they see the big $0.00! sign. Will they order the fries and milkshake, or the Wagyu steaks and champagne? Will they eat a little, or as much as they can?

    How long do you think my restaurant will run before bankrupting itself?

    Now imagine if, by law, my restaurant is the ONLY food service available in town. When I start running out of free food, what will I do to make sure everyone gets their orders? That’s right, rationing. And can I, the restauranter, preside over every single decision on who deserves to get the five lobsters for the week? No, my hired bureaucrats will have to do it for me.

    It’s not a perfect illustration, but I feel it does a pretty good job of showing why the concept of ‘free’ healthcare is fundamentally flawed.

    And for Obamacare in particular, whether or not universal socialized healthcare is fundamentally flawed, it will not be sustainable. See chart at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484124282885188.html

    —————————-

    Whether or not trolls overinflate your meter count is played out in your mind, never mine.

    My apologies then. From your comment, I interpreted that as the meaning.

    If you have invested a bit more time being more courteous (as can be seen in gradual, more civilised approach in your rebuttals) rather than using buzzword like SUCKS in your blog, or Kah kah kah kah laughter, you could have perhaps, learnt much more.

    Personally, I respond to commentors in the same vein they use. See my conversation with Murderbot by contrast.

    So if someone comes here with condescension and guns blazing, I simply assume that is the kind of response they prefer from me.

  30. Ron Says:

    You mean the way federal mandates on insurance violate the right of states to decide not to include sex change operations and make every customer pay to cover them?

    That was decided by the US Supreme Court:

    Page 75 U. S. 184

    Issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. The policies are simple contracts of indemnity against loss by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for a consideration paid by the latter. These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their signature and the transfer of the consideration. Such contracts are not interstate transactions, though the parties may be domiciled in different States. The policies do not take effect — are not executed contracts — until delivered by the agent in Virginia. They are, then, local transactions, and are governed by the local law. They do not constitute a part of the commerce between the States any more than a contract for the purchase and sale of goods in Virginia by a citizen of New York whilst in Virginia would constitute a portion of such commerce.

    As a former CIR litigator Ann Coulter should know this — so she’s either being deceitful or she’s incompetent (I’ll let you decide).

    Methinks you are confusing the end results of a free market with the end results of a monopoly.

    To wit: Has what you described happened yet to Internet service providers, cellphone lines, discount markets, or any of the countless industries not subjected to the weight of cyclopean government regulations?

    Buying health insurance isn’t the same as buying a pizza, or a cell phone. In the latter cases, you can judge the quality of the service (and press for remedial action) immediately, whereas in the former all you get is a promise to pay an unspecified amount at an unspecified date. The only time you discover your insurance policy is inadequate or inferior is when you’re physically confined to a hospital bed with tubes running out of your nose, which may be years down the road, and not exactly the best time to re-negotiate your options.

  31. Ron Says:

    Correction: CIR litigator, should read corporate litigator.

  32. Scott Thong Says:

    That was decided by the US Supreme Court

    Ah yes, liberals’ favourite way to bulldoze through laws that would never make it past a popular vote without.Dem pols getting kicked out for revealing their views:

    Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don’t have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.

    (Note: This is only a partial list.)

    But seriously now: Reading your excerpt, I’m not exactly clear what premise you say Coulter is lying/ignorant on. That federal law does forbid insurance competition across state lines? Care to clarify?

    Buying health insurance isn’t the same as buying a pizza, or a cell phone. In the latter cases, you can judge the quality of the service (and press for remedial action) immediately, whereas in the former all you get is a promise to pay an unspecified amount at an unspecified date. The only time you discover your insurance policy is inadequate or inferior is when you’re physically confined to a hospital bed with tubes running out of your nose, which may be years down the road, and not exactly the best time to re-negotiate your options.

    The timeline is slower but the principle remains: Will freely competing health insurers be able to keep their currently healthy customers if their sick customers keep getting the brush off and subsequently file complaints?

  33. Ron Says:

    Ah yes, liberals’ favourite way to bulldoze through laws that would never make it past a popular vote without.Dem pols getting kicked out for revealing their views:

    Did you even follow the link? Because the precedent was set in 1869 by a Republican Chief Justice, appointed by a Republican President, during a Republican Congress (both House and Senate majorities). But let me guess: now you’ll argue that all those elected representatives were really Democrats who surreptitiously ran under the Republican banner as part of a clandestine maneuver to gain control of the government and impose their evil liberal policies.

    But seriously now: Reading your excerpt, I’m not exactly clear what premise you say Coulter is lying/ignorant on. That federal law does forbid insurance competition across state lines? Care to clarify?

    This is basic civics. The Supreme Court decides on matters involving constitutional law, and legislation that violates the Constitution gets struck down. In this case, the SCOTUS upheld State rights to regulate insurance companies by ruling that the Commerce Clause provision of the 10th Amendment which regulates inter-state commerce did not apply to that industry. In order to pass a bar exam and practice commercial law, Ann would have to know that Congress can’t pass laws that override a Supreme Court decision, so her entire argument is bogus.

    The timeline is slower but the principle remains: Will freely competing health insurers be able to keep their currently healthy customers if their sick customers keep getting the brush off and subsequently file complaints?

    Well, as this case illustrates, the insurance companies operating across states lines in an unregulated free market 150 years ago have already demonstrated that they are incapable of policing themselves without state intervention.

  34. Scott Thong Says:

    Hey everyone! The market crashed recently.

    You know what that coincides with?

    OBAMA’S BIRTHDAY!!!

    Correlation!!! /sarc

    Or maybe it was the fact he was partying while the country slides further into fiscal ruin. /snark

  35. Scott Thong Says:

    Ann would have to know that Congress can’t pass laws that override a Supreme Court decision, so her entire argument is bogus.

    Following her general trend of Supreme Court bashing, I assumed that she was blaming them (again) for imposing non-popular voted laws onto states.

    Well, as this case illustrates, the insurance companies operating across states lines in an unregulated free market 150 years ago have already demonstrated that they are incapable of policing themselves without state intervention.

    I’ll use the Modern Socialist Argument for this one: “Hey sure it failed every single time they tried to implement it, but THIS TIME it will work!” /snark

  36. wits0 Says:

    The glorious truth: Tea Party Movement outnumbers Obama Libs!

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39186

  37. wits0 Says:

    America’s debt downgrade is a damning indictment of President Obama’s Big Government disaster

    http://fwd4.me/08OE

  38. Ron Says:

    Hey everyone! The market crashed recently.

    You know what that coincides with?

    “We’re not steering this bus—it’s all coming from Europe,” Art Cashin, director of floor operations at UBS Financial Services told CNBC. “We’re hearing reports of funds drawing out of European banks and we’re pretty close to something that might turn ugly.”

    Face it, your mojo just ain’t workin’ Scott.

    Following her general trend of Supreme Court bashing, I assumed that she was blaming them (again) for imposing non-popular voted laws onto states.

    With all their beefs, I can’t understand why Ann and her ilk don’t just set their very own Galt’s Gulch in the libertarian utopia of Somalia. They’ll no longer have to deal with government regulations or pay taxes on wasteful social programs, and the cell phone rates are insanely low!!

    I’ll use the Modern Socialist Argument for this one: “Hey sure it failed every single time they tried to implement it, but THIS TIME it will work!”

    Well, we’ll soon find out. In the last year or so, three states — Wyoming, Maine, and Georgia — have passed bills allowing the sale of out-of-state health insurance (subject to various restrictions). IIRC, the bill in Maine was hotly contested by both consumer groups and medical practitioners.

  39. Ron Says:

    @wits0

    Cite more reliable sources because canadafreepress is the National Enquirer of of on-line newspapers.

  40. Scott Thong Says:

    canadafreepress is the National Enquirer of of on-line newspapers.

    Even National Enquirer is right sometimes, ref John Edwards / Rielle Hunter

  41. wits0 Says:

    Ron. you trust Newsweak, no?

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/michele_bachman_newsweek.php

    And John Kerry’s spray of 50 calibre slugs at the Tea Party too!

  42. eternal Says:

    Scott thong,

    Okay I give you a benefit of a doubt. I could have misjudged you. By the way, when you use buzzwords and tags such as ‘Sucks’ on your blog, were entirely written by you unless somebody hack into your website and wrote that on your behalf. It gives off a really bad impression. It could be snarky, but it doesn’t do your intelligence any justice. I do agree, that everybody has bias, but i would be more careful with extremism. Extremism breeds even more extremism. Hatred breens more hatred, look at the social circle of the crazy Norwegian killer.

    Your referencing style makes it really tedious to trace the authencity of your sources, as it tends to be your other blog posts which link to other authors’ blogs, which again link to other blogs, later to find one of the blog referencing Dailymail which is a Tabloid Newspaper rather a real newspaper, like the Telegraph. The convenient neglect of the ‘conditional tense’ by Dailymail to justify ‘the legitacy of a news’ is not something I take very lightly, as tenses changes the context of the information. Were you even aware of the Dailymail? Or did you just read out of blogs, but weren’t aware if those blogs use legitmate sources? As it appears to me that you referenced moonbattery a lot, but you don’t seem to reference the sources of moonbattery.

    I will look at some some of the sources and your arguments you have sent me later in deeper depth, and will try to validate the authencity of some of these sources. but at the mean time, I hope you have have actually read my earlier links, I would love to hear your thoughts about those links I have sent you, and why those links are not reliable. I have the feeling you sent me tonnes of links that are anti-global warming without actually analysing and invalidating the points from my links directly.

    I see your side about giving insurance firms more freedom and autonomy, but that has not answered by earlier point to you? What is so bad about “Health Insurance Exchange”. From a consumer point of view, it is good, I have the freedom to choose the best insurance policy. Why do the Republicans say no?

    Wits0,
    Hmm you do know that the Republians drag its feet for raising the debt ceiling don’t you? The points from Telegraph which you sourced are valid worries…. however, the biggest concern is consumer’s confidence, cutting down on government spending is more ideological than pragmatic under this circumstance. Yes, government spending may not be as efficient as private spending, problem is that businesses invest base on consumer’s confidence and expenditure. The only way to stimulate growth is through government expenditure. Under this current economic circumstance, businesses do not invest based on reduced taxes for the rich. Economic growth its fuelled by consumption of average Joes like us, not consumption of the rich. The rich plays more of a role in investment (not suitable now) not consumption. For somebody to claim that Obama should cut on fiscal spending makes a poor economist, glaringly ignored inflated military spending. Obama has his faults, but to blame him on federal bailouts are preposterous, when politicians from both side of US were going to bail out the banks anyway.

  43. Scott Thong Says:

    Okay I give you a benefit of a doubt. I could have misjudged you. By the way, when you use buzzwords and tags such as ‘Sucks’ on your blog, were entirely written by you unless somebody hack into your website and wrote that on your behalf. It gives off a really bad impression. It could be snarky, but it doesn’t do your intelligence any justice.

    Well, like I said, if a commentor starts off by being all jazzy and snide, I automatically respond in that way.

    I’ll admit that among my main reasons for blogging and commenting is the fun of arguing – even if I don’t win.

    ——————————

    Your referencing style makes it really tedious to trace the authencity of your sources, as it tends to be your other blog posts which link to other authors’ blogs, which again link to other blogs, later to find one of the blog referencing Dailymail which is a Tabloid Newspaper rather a real newspaper, like the Telegraph.

    Okay, admittedly so. But I prefer to link blogs since

    a) They phrase the point I want to make in a way that benefits my argument
    b) Being my source, I should give them kudos and a few hits

    So I will be maintaining my style.

    ——————————

    As it appears to me that you referenced moonbattery a lot, but you don’t seem to reference the sources of moonbattery.

    As with all my blog links, most of the time the source of the news item or factoid is at the link itself. So yeah, it can get tedious with four or five links in a chain.

    ——————————

    I have the feeling you sent me tonnes of links that are anti-global warming without actually analysing and invalidating the points from my links directly.

    Okay, again admittedly so. Very well, I’ll take a look at the links. It’s a lot of work, though, so bear with me a while.

    Oh yeah, another reason I like to link blogs? They can present the data in such a way as to make their argument seem watertight, while leaving out counterpoints. (But then again, most of ‘objective’ news media do this too.)

    ——————————

    What is so bad about “Health Insurance Exchange”. From a consumer point of view, it is good, I have the freedom to choose the best insurance policy. Why do the Republicans say no?

    Here’s the thing – few people disagree with isolated parts of Obamacare. It’s the package as a whole that they object to.

    An example often given by http://ace.mu.nu/: Let’s say you ask some people on the street, “Would you like a cool sports car? What if it came with gold-plated rims? Surround sound CD player? And a 20 year warranty on the engine?”

    Now who would say no to that?

    However, here’s the catch: “You get all that, for just $2,500,000!

    Suddenly few people are still interested. The individual benefits are great, sure, but they come attached to a high price tag.

    So for Obamacare, how high? For starters, look what it did to the hiring rate. (More details at here.)

    As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:

    Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;
    Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and
    Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

    So yes, who would argue against wider choice of insurers, or fairer play by insurance companies, or guaranteed coverage for all health related issues? But these things are not free – they come with a hefty bill, bureaucratic control and red tape, massive inefficiencies.

    And in specific, here’s what Utah’s version has turned out like. As always, the ideal sounds great (free choice!), but the reality falls far short (limited to our list only!).

    So to close with the car analogy again, not only does this super cool sports model cost a bomb… It also has an air-conditioning unit that smells stale, brakes that don’t work in the rain, and only comes in neon pink. Even fewer takers now?

    ———————————

    The only way to stimulate growth is through government expenditure.

    This is directed to Wits0, but I have some responses.

    Pumping money into the economy should work in theory, but as usual, reality bites. The Stimulus did not aid job creation – just look at the graphs as follow:

    Investors.com – Democrats’ Tax-And-Spend Insanity (spending up, yet employment down)

    Job Creation 101 (jobless rates are WORSE than Obama’s prediction of what would happen without Stimulus – so did Stimulus make it worse?)

    New Chart Proves Obamanomics Creates Jobs (sarcasm)

    White House Website: Obama-Pelosi Stimulus Has Cost $278,000 per Job (grossly inefficient use of resources)

    Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression… But It Did Triple the Deficit (economy stabilized before Stimulus took effect)

    Part of the problem was that small businesses, which spend their pennies more efficiently than monolithic bureucracies, were shortchanged in Stimulus.

    Reducing taxes works because it encourages business – ALL business mind you, not just those owned by ‘the rich’.

    In this piece by Thomas Sowell, he explains how cutting taxes resulted in economic growth under various Presidents, both Democrat and Republican.

    In brief, if taxes are high then investors would rather not use their money – as they would get low returns due to taxation. Whereas if taxes are low, then investors see that they can get quick returns, so therefore start up or expand their businesses.

    The latter case results in:
    A) Reduced unemployment as workers are needed to man the new businesses;
    B) Reduced drain on government resources and finances due to fewer people on unemployment, welfare and other social services;
    C) Increased government income as there are now more business transaction to be taxed, even though at a lower rate.

    You are familiar with the Laffer Curve? My opinion is that the US (and especially Europe) are too far to the right, especially in this recession. A shift to the left (lower tax rates) has worked before in the past, and it will work again.

    A modern day case in point: The US could add up to $1 trillion investment to the economy, simply by waiving the tax on income earned in foreign countries.

    US companies earning overseas have their earnings taxed in those countries. If they bring back their profits to the USA, they get taxed again. Their solution? Don’t bring the money back.

    But if they were given a tax holiday, they would have no reason not to bring the money back to the USA. And what do corporations do with vast piles of money sitting around? They invest it. Thereby boosting the economy, employment, and government income (as mentioned in Point C).

  44. Scott Thong Says:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/station-data/

    The above does not exonerate Phil Jones and his team, who were manipulating the temperature data of recent years. The question remains: If global warming is really occurring at an accelerated rate, why the need to misportray modern day readings – and why the admission, in the hacked emails and in Phil Jones’ interview, that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years?

    Further, the dataset is from land stations, which are less accurate than satellite readings. As I have mentioned, judging by just the US stations, many are located in areas where their temperature measurements are likely to be inaccurate. (More formally, I believe they do not sufficiently account for the skewing upwards by Urban Heat Island effect.)

    I have not delved into the raw data itself – it would take too much time and effort (and I currently owe Ron some Biblical exegesis). However, others have:

    Excerpts from Analysing the complete hadCRUT yields some surprising results:

    HadCRUT3: 30% Of Stations Recorded A Cooling Trend In Their Whole History

    The “error of the measurement” of the warming trend is 3 times larger than the result!

    In this sense, the warming recorded by the HadCRUT3 data is not global. Despite the fact that the average station records 77 years of the temperature history, 30% of the stations still manage to end up with a cooling trend. The warming at a given place is 0.75 plus minus 2.35 °C per century.

    The 2.35 °C is later corrected to 2.2 °C, but that hardly affects the end result.

    If you have analysed ther raw data yourself, do share your findings with me.

    My stand is the same as with any issue – convince me with the facts, data and logic, and I will follow accordingly. I admitted my error on several issues and changed my stance publicly – global warming will be no different if it comes to it. (I actually used to be a believer, who couldn’t conceive how some idiots could possibly be skeptical!)

    Admittedly it is true that there is ‘No convincing some people’, as the first link so condescendingly puts it. However, this may apply to global warming believers as well.

  45. Scott Thong Says:

    Have you heard any stories of older, more expensive federal employees losing their jobs during this budget crisis — as corporations typically do when they are hemorrhaging money?

    Have you read any stories about departments drastically cutting back and looking for money-saving solutions — doing more with less, as they say, or “working smarter, not harder”?

    Has the media been full of stories by weary bureaucrats complaining, like teachers are apparently instructed by their unions to claim, that they have to buy their own supplies to properly do their jobs?

    Has there been any grousing that federal employees are missing expected pay raises and promotions, being forced to work at their old salaries through this crisis?

    The answer is no.

    While the country is teeters on the verge of a Depression (if it has not tottered over already), the federal bureaucracy remains gold-plated and immune to cutbacks.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/319905.php

  46. Scott Thong Says:

    More snark, and not from me!

    Obama spoke today. The Dow plummetted 634 points. – Jim Hoft

    “Well I thought that late day rally that we saw probably started at 3 oclock when word went out that the president would NOT address the country. There was cheering, hats thrown in the air.” – Charles Krauthammer

    Markets take huge dive during Obama speech While President Obama was speaking to the country the Dow Jones Industrial Average kept going lower. – WTAM1100

  47. wits0 Says:

    Yoo…..hoo…

    How to Create an Instant Bear Market

    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-create-instant-bear-market.html

    Annnnnnd:
    The Liberal Media is Deserting Obama

    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/08/liberal-media-is-deserting-obama.html

    “…In the August 9 edition of the conservative Wall Street Journal, columnist Bret Stephens’ column was titled “Is Obama Smart?” Concisely summing up the two views of the President, Stephens wrote “Liberals say he’s too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.”

    “I don’t buy it,” wrote Stephens. “I just think the president isn’t very bright.” He concluded “Stupid is as stupid does, said the great philosopher Forrest Gump. The presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does.”.”
    …………………………………………………………………………………….
    Hahahaa!

  48. Ron Says:

    New York Times

    Poll Shows Negative View of Tea Party on the Rise

    By KATE ZERNIKE
    Published: August 5, 2011

    Little more than a year ago, most Americans did not know enough about the Tea Party to have an opinion. Now, more people have opinions, and they are hardly positive.

    The percentage of people with an unfavorable view of the Tea Party in a New York Times/CBS News Poll this week was higher than it has been since the first time the question was asked, in April 2010. Forty percent of those polled this week characterized their view as “not favorable,” compared with 18 percent in the first poll.

    […]

    The Tea Party may have benefited early on from people not really knowing exactly what it was.

    While 18 percent of people in the April 2010 poll identified themselves as Tea Party supporters, just 4 percent of those polled had actually attended a meeting or given money to the movement.

    Without any central organization or policy platforms, the Tea Party became a vehicle for all sorts of amorphous frustrations. Many people came to it more out of anxiety about the economy or anger toward Washington than for any specific policy position.

    On Election Day, while 4 in 10 voters said they were Tea Party supporters, many might not have known what they were signing up for.

    The debate over the debt ceiling gave people a more concrete picture: Tea Party groups and members of the Tea Party caucus in the House and Senate — many of them elected in the Republican sweep of 2010 — insisted that they would not raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. Members of the American public, meanwhile, including Tea Party supporters, were telling pollsters that they wanted compromise, not inflexibility.

    Tea Party groups and lawmakers made debt reduction their priority, but many Americans said creating jobs was more important. And while many Republicans, influenced by the Tea Party, insisted that they would not allow any increases in tax revenue, a majority of Americans said debt reduction had to include higher taxes as well as lower spending.

    […]

    In the most recent poll, most Americans took a negative view of the debt-ceiling negotiations, seeing them as “mostly about gaining political advantage.” With Republicans in charge of the House, more of the blame fell on them. And many people — a 43 percent plurality — saw the Tea Party as having too much influence on Republicans.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, Democrats were most likely to have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party. But a plurality of independents, too — 40 percent — viewed the Tea Party negatively, and said it had too much influence on the Republican Party.

  49. Scott Thong Says:

    44 percent of respondents think the cuts in the debt deal didn’t go far enough, versus only 15 percent who said “too far.” – NYT Downplays Own Poll Showing More Think Spending Cuts Didn’t Go Far Enough

    Tea Party groups and lawmakers made debt reduction their priority, but many Americans said creating jobs was more important.

    Riiiight. Like the way Obama has focused on Obamacare Libya killing domestic oil jobs and production funding Brazilian oil jobs and production skyrocketing energy prices carbon caps green non-jobs fundraisers golfing hoidays job creation since 2008.

    Still the President says he’s now focusing like a LASER on job creation – by our count the 7th such pivot since the beginning of his presidency.ABC’s Jake Tapper

    So why is Obama focusing, LIKE A LASER, on so many things that KILL jobs, like banning drilling in the Gulf, carbon caps and raising taxes?

  50. Ron Says:

    From the NYT article:

    Republicans in Congress shoulder more of the blame for the difficulties in reaching a debt-ceiling agreement than President Obama and the Democrats, the poll found.

    The Republicans compromised too little, a majority of those polled said. All told, 72 percent disapproved of the way Republicans in Congress handled the negotiations, while 66 percent disapproved of the way Democrats in Congress handled negotiations.

    The public was more evenly divided about how Mr. Obama handled the debt ceiling negotiations: 47 percent disapproved and 46 percent approved.

  51. eternal Says:

    Scott thong,

    I have given you many examples where you invited uncivilized controversy from good ‘self’advertising’ strategies, I don’t think I want to harp on all the examples again.

    “I’ll admit that among my main reasons for blogging and commenting is the fun of arguing – even if I don’t win.”

    Should I add that one has to blog with responsibility and civility? Otherwise what makes your blog any different from propoganda?

    “Okay, admittedly so. But I prefer to link blogs since

    a) They phrase the point I want to make in a way that benefits my argument
    b) Being my source, I should give them kudos and a few hits

    So I will be maintaining my style.”

    I have my criticisms about your points here, you do not seem to put much effort into the credibility of your sources. It appears to me that you are only reading what you want to believe in, which is self-perpetuating cycle of self-reinforcing ‘delusion’ not ‘reality’.

    I don’t have time to look at all your links and sources, but having looked through at global warming sources you have sent me. Your sources have questionable reliability and professionalism (apart from earlier mentioned, tabloid journalism such as DailyMail). Your pictures can only be traced back to one source (surfacestation.org) which seems to have a dodgy URL. The whole premise (anti-global warming) of that ‘original’ source can only be traced to ONE peer-reviewed scientific paper. Just ONE, and that is sufficient to denounce global warming science?!?! If someone is that gullible, then that someone deserve to be scammed.

    The funny thing is that this so-called scientific paper cannot be traced either by google or sciencedirect. It sounds like an elaborated scam to me. Any credible scientific paper can easily be traced by google scholar, really…..

    I will look more into your other arguments and sources, but I fret that I am going to waste more of my time fishing out scams than learning.

  52. eternal Says:

    By Warren Buffet

    OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

    While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

    These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

    Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

    If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

    To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

    Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

    I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

    Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

    The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

    I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

    Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

    Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

    But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

    My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

    Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

  53. Scott Thong Says:

    Scott thong,

    I have given you many examples where you invited uncivilized controversy from good ‘self’advertising’ strategies, I don’t think I want to harp on all the examples again.

    Actually, IMHO often the very subject matter I cover invites controversy.

    But I don’t claim or pretend to be HIS HONOURED LORD OF POLITENESS SIR MEEKHEART THE GENTLEWORDED.

    I blog and comment the way I do which is wholly within my rights, and if you disagree with my style that is wholly within your rights.

    Should I add that one has to blog with responsibility and civility? Otherwise what makes your blog any different from propoganda?

    I think my style is pretty moderate on the GIFT scale. I don’t cuss or insult people’s lineage. I don’t resort to racism.

    (I mean, Morgan Freeman knows I don’t disparage the physical appearance of my political opposites, nor do I insinuate that their popularity is due to uncontolled sexual drive… The way some of my commentors do. Not talking about you btw.)

    I have my criticisms about your points here, you do not seem to put much effort into the credibility of your sources. It appears to me that you are only reading what you want to believe in, which is self-perpetuating cycle of self-reinforcing ‘delusion’ not ‘reality’.

    Cite me some specific examples will ya? (Oops, I said ‘ya’ instead of ‘you’ – is informality ‘uncivilized’ too?)

    As far as I am aware, all my ‘blog’ links have as their (eventual) original sources news sites like The Wall Street Journal, or include references and citations to their data sources (such as for the economics graphs).

    I am not going to link a blog and then link all the references in that blog, the way you did for your East Anglia temperature data. To me that is redundant and a waste of time. If I were to provide the original data source, I might as well just skip the blogs where I found the data in the first place.

    (And by the way, your first link on that had a very dismissive, condesending tone towards skeptics – insinuating that even raw data wouldn’t change their minds. Well, some skeptic took the raw data and found high irregularities. So who is being stubborn here? Just mentioning this to point out that even your own cited links do not always follow ‘civilized’ etiquette.)

    Even when I cite Ann Coulter, it’s usually a section of her columns where she cites statistics and records – which can then be cross checked with a little work.

    I don’t have time to look at all your links and sources, but having looked through at global warming sources you have sent me. Your sources have questionable reliability and professionalism (apart from earlier mentioned, tabloid journalism such as DailyMail). Your pictures can only be traced back to one source (surfacestation.org) which seems to have a dodgy URL. The whole premise (anti-global warming) of that ‘original’ source can only be traced to ONE peer-reviewed scientific paper. Just ONE, and that is sufficient to denounce global warming science?!?! If someone is that gullible, then that someone deserve to be scammed.

    So what, I have to dig up and summarize all my sum total knowledge of the anthropogenic global warming issue and present it to you in order to try and persuade you that my reasonable doubt is, in fact, reasonable? When you don’t even have time to look through what I already provided?

    Let me try again. Go look at http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/ which is my own personal collection of facts and news bites, including from Forbes, the NYT, the BBC, Reuters, and the Journal of Geophysical Research (peer reviewed study) which all testify that no warming has occured recently.

    Add on NASA, HadCrut and UAH satellite data, Arctic Research Center, World Meteorological Organization, US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, Bloomberg, Geophysical Research Letters, National Climatic Data Center, Agence France-Presse, Associated Free Press, International Journal of Modern Physics, Investors Business Daily, Polar Bears International, Polar Bear Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Associated Press, and Newsweek throughout the rest of that site.

    Surely at least some of those sources pass muster with you?

    I will look more into your other arguments and sources, but I fret that I am going to waste more of my time fishing out scams than learning.

    How about we just forget about all the eggheads, and use our own brains for a while then?

    CO2 levels are increasing? Yes. (Source: BBC)

    Temperatures are increasing? No. (Source: Forbes, Reuters, BBC)

    Does this gel with global warming theory? YOU TELL ME.

  54. Scott Thong Says:

    And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

    A dishonest portrayal that skews the presentation of data in favour of his argument (just like what Phil Jones and his East Anglia climate research team did!). Allow me to perform a brief debunking.

    First we look to Wikipedia – Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms for how many jobs were created and when.

    As Warren Buffett suggests, the creation of jobs seems to have been chugging along merrily from 1980-2000, then suddenly dropped from 2000 onwards.

    But now we look to National Taxpayers Union where we can examine the tax % rate on the top bracket (Buffett’s ‘mega-rich’).

    Turns out, the tax rate on the mega-rich kept getting slashed – from 70% in 1980, to 50% from 1982-1986, and further slashed down to 38.5% and 28% by 1990. The rate went marginally up, to 31%, then gradually climbed back to the 39.6% levels of pre-1990.

    So we can see that slashing tax rates on the top earners from 70% to a much more reasonable 40% zone led to job creation. This is the opposite of what Buffett is pushing.

    But look further! From 2001 onwards, the job creation rate fell precipitously just as Buffett said! That fool Bush-43 must have slashed tax rates by a massive fraction, yes?

    No. The tax on the mega-rich was changed from 39.6% in 2000, to 39.1% in 2001, to 38.6% in 2002, and then to 35.0% from 2003 onwards. That’s a miniscule reduction! Do you personally think that a tax rate reduction of barely even one-tenth over the previous higher rate is to blame for knocking the job growth rate from 2+ to 0+ percent?

    Something else must have caused the drop in job creation! Like, I dunno, a massive terrorist attack followed by a history-making housing bust, market crash and global recession, hmm?

    Which of course does not factor at all in Buffett’s intentionally myopic argument.

    But wait! There’s more!

    Let’s go back to Eisenhower’s era, with a tax rate for top earners at a whopping 92%! Can you imagine keeping less than ten cents on every dollar you earned with your 24/7 running about negotiating business deals, balancing your factory management and sweating over the stock market? While the government sits back and takes 91 cents on your every sweat-soaked dollar that you spent 40 years of your youth working your way up to, over failed business after failed business?

    Obviously neither did the captains of industry, because the job creation rate rotted down to almost zero during 1953-1961. Yay for insanely high taxes!

    Then along came Kennedy and Johnson’s era, where the tax rate for top earners was slashed to ‘only’ the 70s range. Job creation surged back up.

    And from there it’s back to the 1980s and even lower taxes which I already covered.

    Also:

    Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports

    Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.

    Buffett Profits from Government Spending

    Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.

    If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.

    Stop coddling Warren Buffett, Beltway Confidential

    And The So-Called “Buffett Rule” Wouldn’t Even Touch Its Ostensible Target, Warren Buffett.

    And yet more:

    Warren Buffett recently claimed that he had paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year. But Berkshire Hathaway, of which Mr. Buffett owns 30%, paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes. Were Berkshire Hathaway a Subchapter S corporation and exempt from corporate income taxes, Mr. Buffett’s personal tax bill would have been 231 times higher, at $1.6 billion.

    And of course:

    But if he were truly sincere, perhaps he might simply try paying the taxes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says his company owes? According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report — see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills. – Warren Buffett’s taxing hypocrisy

    And reality bites:

    Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation’s deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent.

    even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.

    ..In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said.

    Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won’t Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

    And just look at this graph! How much more clear cut do you need to see?

    (I actually don’t have that much to object to with Buffett’s piece. I agree that the twelve members of Congress should pare down some future promises first and foremost.)

    —————————

    So, eternal… You put in so much effort to show up how worthless my links are, but you won’t apply the same standard to an article that you agree with?

    I’m not saying that I am better than you in this respect. I am saying this to point out that you are no more noble or uplifted than any other blogger or commentor.

    So please don’t speak down to me about standards in my blogging, it comes across as very haughty, arrogant, condescending, patronizing and (frankly) naive.

  55. Scott Thong Says:

    By the way, I had plenty to say about universal health care such as Obamacare. Any response? Take your time.

  56. Scott Thong Says:

    Poll Shows Negative View of Tea Party on the Rise – Ron

    You’re right… Now Tea Partiers are even more disliked than atheists!

    That’s gotta be bad!

  57. Ron Says:

    Geez, that is bad.

    I don’t want them to fade out entirely because there’s just too much comedy gold to be lost if that happens.

  58. Scott Thong Says:

    Oh hey look, another total coincidence on the Dow.

  59. turbotax free file Says:

    turbotax refund card…

    […]Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  60. Kindle Fire Coupon Codes 2011 Says:

    Kindle Fire Coupon Codes 2011…

    […]Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  61. internet marketing Says:

    internet marketing…

    […]Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  62. Ron Says:

    “America is rejoicing at the slew of alternatives to the disastrous Obama administration train-wreck.”

    Herman Cain: changed his platform from 9-9-9 to “nein, nein, nein” after sexual harassment charges came to light.

    Michele Bachmann: even God thought she was too crazy.

    Rick Perry: “Oops!!”

    Rick Santorum: His name is crapoutside religious circles. He’ll be gone after the GOP circus leaves South Carolina on the 21st of this month.

    Newt Gingrich: A two-time philanderer who strongly supports the sanctity of marriage. Even Republicans think he’s slime. No chance of winning, but will stick around to lambaste Romney and shill his books.

    Ron Paul: No strong support outside of his cult followers.

    Mit Romney: A left-leaning Republican. Most likely to win the nomination, but the fundies will stay home in droves because he’s a Mormon.

  63. Scott Thong Says:

    Then it’s four more years of Obamanomics, Obamacare, and Obamaforeignpolicy for you to enjoy firsthand. You must be so thrilled!

  64. Ron Says:

    Sweet. Noot wins SC, and Mittens immediately tumbles out of the Republican clown car to continue the slug fest in Florida.

    Meanwhile, Insantorum attends Sunday service with his “Gays make God want to vomit” chairman.

  65. Scott Thong Says:

    Best primary EVER: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325959.php#325959

  66. Ron Says:

    Hey, who knew that the current crop of GOP candidates would become inadvertent members of Obama’s re-election committee.

  67. Scott Thong Says:

    Like Krauthammer put it: “If the Republicans can’t beat that in November, they should try another line of work.”

  68. Ron Says:

    Well time for another GOP update. (I was going to post this yesterday, but there’s already enough fools running in this primary to last till June so why rub it in on the 1st of April.)

    Looks like Mitt’s in the lead for now, but just like Rodney Dangerfield used to say, “[He] just can’t get no respect.” He’ll need to change his “magic” underwear and amp up the batsh*t conservative rhetoric if he wants to grab the requisite number of delegates needed to avoid a brokered convention, because Obama’s polling numbers are up and things are looking bad for Romney in the swing states.

    Rick Santorum can haz conservative womenz frothing in approval with his “barefoot, pregnant, and make me a samwich” platform, but he’s way behind Mittons in this race and voters who live outside the Bible Belt aren’t quite as enamored by his Victorian era policies.

    Newt’s campaign is kaput — he’s been reduced to a side-show freak (with no disrespect intended to real side-show freaks) asking supporters to pay $50 just for getting a picture taken with him (Leering contempt included gratis). No word on how much he charges for a handshake or just to get the hell away from him.

    And then there’s Ron Paul, the dotty old codger whose affable nature evokes lingering affections in young voters still harboring sentimental memories of dear old gramps.

  69. Scott Thong Says:

    So like I said… Bet you’re totally looking forward to the even more impressive foreign, domestic and personal feats of Obama ’12! That’s more insanely cool graphs for my collection.

  70. Ron Says:

    Hey, it’s not over till the fat lady sings, but here’s my predictions:

    Obama wins and the economy eventually recovers midway into his second term, thereby firmly cementing the voters’ impression that the Bush administration left the nation with a lingering mess so bad that it took the next one over six years to clean it up. By that time the ’16 campaign is gearing into full swing and the DNC can proudly point out what happened the last the the GOP grabbed control of the political reigns in Washington.

  71. Scott Thong Says:

    Well if you really believe that multi-trillions in deficit stimulus spending (that goes to such wunderkinds as Solyndra and sexual stimulant studies on dogs), stonewalling oil drilling/pipelines, expanding EPA and other regulations, encouraging American firms to sell out to foreigners, etc really help the economy/jobs/energy prices & independence… Then sure!!!

    And you really believe that, right? Right?

    After all, it’s not like some other President has ever inherited a high unemployment cycle and directly affected its recovery phase. Am I right?

  72. Ron Says:

    Well if you really believe that multi-trillions in deficit stimulus spending

    You mean like the $870 billion parting gift Bush left in his final year?

    (that goes to such wunderkinds as Solyndra

    The deal was presented as a good investment opportunity by Goldman Sachs and had over $1 billion in private funds backing it. Solyndra received $535 million in DOE-backed loans–i.e. government assurance that private investors would be compensated in case of lender default–which is not the same thing as a direct handout with no strings attached.

    It failed…life sucks…we move on.

    and sexual stimulant studies on dogs),

    What? Are you some kind of speciesist? Dogs have needs too!!

    stonewalling oil drilling/pipelines, expanding EPA and other regulations,

    Because god forbid that maintaining access to clean drinking water for millions of people and protecting the wildlife should ever take precedence when there’s a fast buck to be made, right? Who cares if future generations inherit a despoiled landscape so long as we can bolster the bottom line for the next few quarters.

    encouraging American firms to sell out to foreigners,

    **Sigh**

    “President Obama’s Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs, Discourage Outsourcing, and Encourage Insourcing”

    etc really help the economy/jobs/energy prices & independence… Then sure!!!

    Addressed here, but never got any rebuttal.

    And you really believe that, right? Right?

    Believe? I’m an empiricist, so beliefs find no refuge within my epistemology.

    After all, it’s not like some other President has ever inherited a high unemployment cycle and directly affected its recovery phase. Am I right?

    If you were right, then why did you abandon the conversation on that thread?

  73. Scott Thong Says:

    Actually, come to think of it, the worst possible result for the GOP would be for Romney to WIN…

    Followed by a weak-spined continuation of all of Obama’s policies, which combined with what Romney inherits from Obama, will lead to the complete implosion of the economny which will be blamed on the Republican president.

  74. Ron Says:

    Too late. The economy imploded four years ago under Bush’s watch. And now George is bad karma — the elephant in the room the GOP candidates are trying to pretend isn’t there. None dare mention his name because doing so would unleash a maelstrom of fury from the disenchanted Republican voter.

  75. Ron Says:

    Seems like Frothy Mix is a racist:

    “We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like: the anti-war government nig… uh… the… uh… America was a source for division around the world.”

  76. Scott Thong Says:

    Yeah, Bush is such a jinx, that when locals GOPs are up for reelection they declare how much they opposed his plans, and where he is going to visit they desperately try to avoid being seen with him. Even the GOP-controlled Senate and the House unanimously, 100%, down-to-the-man reject his proposals.

    Whoops… May have had a bit of a technical issue there, links may be mixed up. But you catch the drift. ‘Fake but accurate’ and all that jazz like your media like to claim on defense.

    So, tell me again how much you love the guy and have full confidence in his policies. In fact, tell me EVEN ONCE how you have full confidence in his ability to handle the economy and jobs.

  77. Scott Thong Says:

    Know what, while we’re on the whole ‘Do you support Obama’s policies’ thing…

    I and many conservatives readily admit that Bush ’43 was a failure in many ways. We consider it bad that he supported things such as bailouts because it is the opposite of what we think is the right thing to do.

    But what about when Obama spends on yet another version of Keynesian stimulus? I of course oppose it, but do you support it?

    So in mocking me that Bush was a big spender, what you are accomplishing on the side is to tacitly admit that big spending is a negative.

  78. Scott Thong Says:

    Yup, Solyndra had totally nothing to do with the Green President:

    It failed…life sucks…we move on.

    Yeah, been getting a lot of that lately, haven’t we?

    Does no one even look at the business plans of these companies, their competition? Maybe not, seeing as this is the administration with the least amount of private sector (i.e. Profit vs Loss Balancesheets) experience ever.

    And you’re saying you look forward to another four years of that?

    Honestly dude, if you are really truly 100-percent convinced that this guy will run the country better than anyone else on the ticket, he’s all yours. Buy a GM volt while you’re at it, whydoncha?

    (DISCLAIMER: The above is not intended to constitute a death threat; it refers to support for the Obama-bailed-out car company rather than the explosive combustibility of the cars.)

  79. Scott Thong Says:

    Wait, I thought you said oil prices are not affected?

    You’re have to explain to idiot me, slowly, how having more supply does not reduce prices. I mean, I’m no Nobel Prize for Economics winner here. I just look at the way the rest of the world seems to work.

  80. Scott Thong Says:

    What Bush policies exactly are to blame for tanking the economy? I can name what Obama policies we blame, and they are all liberal-aligned… Stuff that neocons and rightwing blogs get up in arms about when GOP pols cave and sell out on.

  81. Ron Says:

    Yeah, Bush is such a jinx, that when locals GOPs are up for reelection they declare how much they opposed his plans, and where he is going to visit they desperately try to avoid being seen with him.

    No surprises there: Montana comes ninth in the top ten Republican states and has carried the GOP candidates in all four previous elections; West Virginia leans Republican; and Missouri is a swing state that leans Democrat but has nonetheless carried the Republicans in three out of the four last elections. State senators (both Democrat and Republican) have always been seen as fair-weather friends who place personal ambitions above party loyalty and the national interest (though in fairness, Sen. Manchin appears to be one of the few politicians who’s more committed towards making a genuine difference than playing partisan politics).

    Even the GOP-controlled Senate and the House unanimously, 100%, down-to-the-man reject his proposals.

    And I would have voted against it too. But that’s probably because I get my info from more reliable sources than “clown” hall.

    Whoops… May have had a bit of a technical issue there, links may be mixed up. But you catch the drift. ‘Fake but accurate’ and all that jazz like your media like to claim on defense.

    That’s odd, because the polling numbers” seem to suggest otherwise.

    So, tell me again how much you love the guy and have full confidence in his policies. In fact, tell me EVEN ONCE how you have full confidence in his ability to handle the economy and jobs.

    When did I ever say that I did? Contrary to what you may believe, I didn’t/don’t see him as the great savior of the economy or anything else. He’s just another politician who makes grand promises he knows he can’t/won’t keep. But if you think that McCain would have faired any better, you’re dreaming.

    See, I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal; but there’s no room at the two-party political table for voters like myself — so I’m forced to choose between bad fiscal policy and bad social policy, and since neither party has demonstrated sound fiscal policy over the last thirty or so odd years I tend to lean towards candidates who support better social policy. For me, Obama merely represents the lesser of two evils.

    Can you honestly tell me that Gingrich or Santorum represent the future of Ameirca? Romney is the better choice by far, but again, his policies are shaped more by political expediency than by firm personal convictions, so he’ll say anything to get elected.

    For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)

    Truer words were never spoken. The problem is endemic to both sides of the political aisle.

    A pox on both their houses, I say!

    Know what, while we’re on the whole ‘Do you support Obama’s policies’ thing…

    No, I don’t. To my thinking, the sole function of government is to protect personal liberties, by which I mean to say: personal (as in natural persons, not corporate entities) and negative liberties (as in the liberty to be left alone, free of interference or coercion — so long as my actions don’t impinge upon the liberty of others).

    Of course, the devil is in the details.

    I and many conservatives readily admit that Bush ’43 was a failure in many ways. We consider it bad that he supported things such as bailouts because it is the opposite of what we think is the right thing to do.

    But was the alternative (allowing total economic collapse) any better? That option might find ideological favor in a neo-con poliitcal-science class, but even Bush wasn’t that callous.

    But what about when Obama spends on yet another version of Keynesian stimulus? I of course oppose it, but do you support it?

    So in mocking me that Bush was a big spender, what you are accomplishing on the side is to tacitly admit that big spending is a negative.

    I agree that big spending is a negative. However, framing everything as a “black and white” or “us vs. them” dichotomy distracts from the real issues at hand.

  82. Ron Says:

    Yeah, been getting a lot of that lately, haven’t we?

    Does no one even look at the business plans of these companies, their competition? Maybe not, seeing as this is the administration with the least amount of private sector (i.e. Profit vs Loss Balancesheets) experience ever.

    You know, I’ve often found myself thinking the same thing.

  83. Ron Says:

    Honestly dude, if you are really truly 100-percent convinced that this guy will run the country better than anyone else on the ticket, he’s all yours. Buy a GM volt while you’re at it, whydoncha?

    Funny you should mention that!

    (DISCLAIMER: The above is not intended to constitute a death threat; it refers to support for the Obama-bailed-out car company rather than the explosive combustibility of the cars.)

    GM Announces Enhancements to Chevrolet Volt
    Changes follow NHTSA investigation into post-severe crash battery performance”

    The enhancements come in response to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Preliminary Evaluation to examine post-severe crash battery performance.

    NHTSA opened its Preliminary Evaluation on Nov. 25 following a severe-impact lab test on a battery pack that resulted in an electrical fire six days later. The test was conducted to reproduce a coolant leak that occurred in a full-scale vehicle crash test last May that resulted in an electrical fire three weeks later.

    Only seems to be affect those who remain trapped within their vehicles for longer than three weeks after a serious crash (i.e., primarily people living in Republican states which have slashed public funding for emergency services)

  84. Ron Says:

    Wait, I thought you said oil prices are not affected? You’re have to explain to idiot me, slowly, how having more supply does not reduce prices. I mean, I’m no Nobel Prize for Economics winner here. I just look at the way the rest of the world seems to work.

    You want me to educate you on the nuances of the global oil economy in a blog comment? Sorry, no can do. Try google.

  85. Ron Says:

    This just in: Ricky #2 has finally dropped out of the GOP race.

    Seems rather strange — especially considering that just over a month ago his wife said that “God had big plans for Rick.”

    Oh well, I guess it’s just another case of “the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.”

  86. Scott Thong Says:

    Care to revise your guesstimate for Prez ’12?

    The report indicated a significant deceleration in job growth after several months of encouraging data. Obama greeted the news with happy talk about the fact that 600,000 jobs have been created since December — which ignored the fact that the rate in March was half what it was from December through February.

  87. Ron Says:

    Yeah, times are tough — even for Newt.

    Brother, can you spare $500 for the GOP candidate who can’t balance his budget?

  88. Scott Thong Says:

    So like I said, you certainly must be happy, thrilled and overjoyed at the prospect of another 4 years of surefire economic, foreign and etc Obama policies.

    Am I right? Am I right?

    It’s not like a Pyrrhic victory for you or anything, right?

  89. Ron Says:

    Pyrrhic victory?

    You mean like the successful War on Terror that came with a $4 trillion price tag, 225,000 death toll, 8 million refugee count, “enhanced interrogation techniques” and “complimentary” body-cavity searches at every U.S. airport?

  90. Scott Thong Says:

    Well I can’t really complain, seeing as I didn’t pay for any of that, I didn’t die or get injured by that, yet I and countless others enjoy the direct and indirect benefits of thousands of jihadis being lured to Iraq and Afghanistan and dying in droves there.

    Oh wait… You said victory? Not the way Obama is going about announcing his planned, election-centric pullout while not announcing any sort of victory.

  91. Scott Thong Says:

    But anyways… Back to how wonderful you just know another 4 years of Obama is gonna be… Tell us about it man, we wanna be part of the vision!

  92. Ron Says:

    “God’s Old Party” is on the ropes even amongst the faithful:

    Election 2012 Preferences: Political Polarization among U.S. Faith Segments

    Evangelical Support for Obama Doubles in Past Three Years

    April 4, 2012

    As the 2012 election campaign approaches phase two – when the major-party candidates have been selected and begin to square off – there is an unmistakable lack of ideological and political unity within the Christian community. A new national survey by the Barna Group among likely voters indicates that there are substantial differences across a wide spectrum of Christian subgroups, with only a one segment unwavering in its commitment to defeat President Obama in November.

    […]

    Evangelicals Dislike Obama, But Likely to Double Their Support for Him

    In the 2008 election, a Barna Group election study found that evangelicals gave Mr. Obama just 11% of their votes, even though Republican challenger John McCain was generally not appreciated much by the group. One of the most striking changes emerging from the new study is that if evangelicals wind up supporting the eventual candidates in November in numbers consistent with their current preferences, Mr. Obama will receive double the support from the evangelical community he garnered four years ago (22%).

    And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about … Barak … who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. (Hebrews 11:32-34)

  93. Scott Thong Says:

    Well that must be joyous news for you then – a bunch of Bible thumpers throwing their weight behind your favored, logic-driven, economically-literate candidate!

  94. Ron Says:

    See, this is what I meant by framing everything as a “black and white” or “us vs. them” dichotomy.

    The word “evangelical” is an umbrella term used to define those whose religious and political viewpoints fall somewhere between hardcore fundamentalism and theological liberalism.

    Theologian Robert Price once jokingly defined an Evangelical as “a fundamentalist who’ll let you go to the movies.”

    That was over twenty years ago. Since then, evangelicals have loosened a few more buttons on their collar, and some have even changed to more comfortable uniforms.

  95. Scott Thong Says:

    More US oil drilling doesn’t mean lower gas prices
    Statistical review finds no link between the two

    It’s overdue, but homework done!

    Apart from the strength of the USD (oil prices are denominated in it) and the USA itself (speculators invest in oil instead of the USD when the US seems to be a bad bet), of course oil prices of course affected by supply and demand – or else why would OPEC shutting down their supply (or merely threatening to) have any effect on prices?

    The key is that US production on its own is currently not enough to meaningfully affect the weighted average of world oil production. Increase US oil production to a much larger % of its massive reserves (i.e. Drill, baby, drill!), and tell me this wouldn’t affect world prices.

    This is exactly what we see now with natural gas prices. Are natural gas and oil such distant, unrelated commodities that the same supply and demand forces and pricing factors do not apply to both?

    If I’m wrong, take it up with the Prez:

    If Obama doesn’t think increasing the supply on the market affects the price at the pump, then why did he ask the Saudis to increase their production? And Brazil? Why did he open our Strategic Reserves last year to lower prices at the pump? Common sense tells you that, of course, increasing the supply of something has an affect on the price.

  96. Ron Says:

    It’s overdue, but homework done!

    Grade: Incomplete

    Markers Comments: The candidate has failed to read the question properly and thus fails to fulfill the set requirements of the assigned task. Furthermore, the ‘canned’ response indicates that the candidate has not made a concerted effort to properly investigate the topic with due diligence. By citing unreliable sources the candidate also reveals a marked weakness in conducting proper research.

    Assessment: To improve the response the candidate should focus attention on the following specific areas:

    – identify the scope of the problem
    – consider ancillary issues related to the main problem
    – create an outline of the points which need to be addressed
    – identify possible sources of information
    – evaluate the reliability of those sources of information
    – conduct research and identify additional issues and sources of information

  97. Scott Thong Says:

    But teeeeeeacher….

    I just did the same thing you showed me, rip something unrelated out of somewhere and stick it in with glue.

  98. Ron Says:

    That’s not true, and I think we both know that I usually provide direct source links whenever possible, whereas most of your info comes regurgitated from other conservative blogs. In fact, you link to AoSHQ and moonbattery so often that I’m tempted to tell the three of you to: “Just get a room already!”

    Just sayin’

  99. Scott Thong Says:

    And as I’ve said before, I like to give kudos where they are due. I read it at AoSHQ or Moonbattery, I link back to them. And they of course have their own linkages, which eventually lead back to the source – which often enough, would be a ‘legitimate’ news site.

  100. phuong phap giam can Says:

    phuong phap giam can…

    […]Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  101. Ron Says:

    Romney Vs. Obama

    Can you tell the difference?

  102. Raliegh Says:

    If you click on Scott Thong’s links, and the links within his links, and the links within those links, they are almost always citing each other, otherwise the ultimate ‘source’ is an unverified source. All the hyperlinks create illusions of well-cited and studied arguments. To give kudos to Moonbattery is just a way of supporting intellectual incest and wannabe but of course you are not that explicit.

  103. Scott Thong Says:

    Surely you exaggerate. I’ll just take one example from my giganto-collection of links for Moonbattery:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/who-is-violent-left-or-right/

    first Moonbattery link was sourced from

    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/03/violence-is-app.html

    where first link was sourced from

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/03/call-off-the-race-hustlers-the-black-caucus-members-lied/

    which was sourced from

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/03/video-seems-to-confirm-no-spitting-on-congressman.html

    which also has the video. Not as peer-reviewedly indisputably solid gold as the East Anglia CRU’s work (lol snark!), but surely that counts as non-evidence of some sort.

  104. Raliegh Says:

    Of course, peer-reviewed is crap, and I am sure whichever university you went to or are going to, ranking is not that important. Which makes me consider why you even had an education to begin with since education must be peer reviewed to ascertain a certain standards. I am sure if you are in some sort of employment, your employer will base it on your peer-reviewed education that you have or maybe not have. ;)

    Your oxymoronic lifestyle humours me. You should be a stnad-up comedian :D

  105. Scott Thong Says:

    Of course, peer-reviewed is crap, and I am sure whichever university you went to or are going to, ranking is not that important. Which makes me consider why you even had an education to begin with since education must be peer reviewed to ascertain a certain standards. I am sure if you are in some sort of employment, your employer will base it on your peer-reviewed education that you have or maybe not have. ;)

    Your oxymoronic lifestyle humours me. You should be a stnad-up comedian :D

    Actually, my point was to snark at the proponents of anthropogenic global warming, which my reference to the East Anglia Climate Research Unit of Climategate infamy should have hinted at.

    But maybe you didn’t recognize that.

  106. raleigh Says:

    I have seen many links and evidence posted to you on anthropogenic globa warmingl, and some dodgy links that repudiates global warming. But some of the databases that support anthorpogenic global warming seems too much of a monumental task for you to try to decipher. And your obsession with Climategate is a bit puzzling.

    Even if climate scientist might be wrong in their predictions, how much would you risk the future of your generation to hedge on a bet that they are wrong? Precaution is better than cure, and even if anthropogenic warming turns out to be false, precaution is not going to deal a lot of harm either.

    Precaution doesn’t necessarily mean oil will be cut out altogether, it means using resources more efficiently even if it meant at a slightly higher cost. Anyone who works in the energy industry understand that oil will always be there, but the process is going to be progressively more costly in non-economic and economic terms.

    What about uncontrolled habitat destruction from resource mining? DO you want your future generation to live in a planet worse off than your time? Let’s not even talk about the progress in medicine that has owed its success to habitat diversity.

  107. Scott Thong Says:

    I have seen many links and evidence posted to you on anthropogenic globa warmingl, and some dodgy links that repudiates global warming.

    How much more straightforward do I need to be than this?

    – Inventor of the Gaia Theory, James Lovelock, admits – no warming in 12 years!

    – Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg via German magazine Focus admits, no warming in 15 years!

    – NASA via The Wall Street Journal confirms, no warming in 10 years!

    – The UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit admit, no warming in 15 years!

    – Forbes admits, no warming in 15 years!

    – The man at the centre of the Climategate scandal, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit Dr. Phil Jones, admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years!

    – Reuters admits, no warming in 9 years!

    – The BBC admits, no warming in 11 years!

    – All this despite CO2 levels continuing to rise – in direct contradiction to anthropogenic global warming theory!

    Global Warming is Unfactual

    Even if climate scientist might be wrong in their predictions, how much would you risk the future of your generation to hedge on a bet that they are wrong? Precaution is better than cure, and even if anthropogenic warming turns out to be false, precaution is not going to deal a lot of harm either.

    And I have seen thsi line of thinking many, many times before.

    My response is this: If it really were a costless freebie to prevent global warming, then I would have no objections. But the reality is that it costs hugely in terms of time, money, restricted progress, even taking away attention from genuine environmental issues.

    I summed it up succintly here:

    Climate Change Mitigation = Insanity

    Climategate has rocked the world of science with its admissions of no recent warming, coupled with a conspiracy to tamper with the data so that the end result would fool the public and policymakers into seeing warming.

    If Kyoto and Copenhagen were cost and drawback free, then there would be no problems with implementing the recommendations – just for fun!

    However, the facts belie that fantasy. For Germany alone, in 2005 alone, adherence to the Kyoto Protocol cost 6.2 billion Euros in increased energy costs. Continued adherence is estimated to result in a loss of 18.5 billion Euros by 2010 – and that’s without applying the stricter parameters negotiated at Copenhagen.

    How about more recent results? Australia’s Kyoto-styled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is due for 2010. Starting steps towards it have already caused electricity prices to shoot up 22%, with a predicted doubling of energy costs by 2015.

    And what has all this massive spending actually accomplished? Unfortunately, nothing – since the Kyoto Protocol was enacted, the European Union only had a 1.5% decrease in carbon emissions, instead of the Kyoto Protocol target of 8% decrease. Signatory Japan even had an 8% increase, and Canada a 22% increase.

    We could better spend those billions lost through adherence to carbon limits on providing clean water to Third World countries, cleaning up Beijing’s choking smog and fixing our injured economies.

    Hey, but you know what, your argument is totally applicable to religion as well! Hell may or not be real, but why take the chance? Pascal’s wager and all that, haha!

  108. raleigh Says:

    You seem ot be suffering from what behavioral scientist would call ‘confirmation bias’. Seeking out evidence to confirm your bias. That however does not cause you to be objective, but then again I doubt objectivity is what you strive for.

    News site have to report what other researchers and experts find, and news site such as BBC and Reuters try to be as objective as possible so they have to report what other contemporary scientists have found. UK met office has even released weather data on global warming but you conveniently ignored it.The problem is there are certain people who will have selective memory, choosing a specific passage within the reporting to confirm their bias.

    There is no such thing as freebies on the planet. A more sustainable lifestyle does not mean more freebies, it means people making the necessary lifestyle changes (making sacrifices where necessary), to prevent more damage be it global warming, habitat destruction (along with precious medicinal properties from destruction of complex ecosystem). If you want your kids to grow up in future where they do not know what the hell is a rainforest, manatees, dolphn, then by all means, continue your indulgence.

    I do not know what planet do you live in if you think that you are justified to weigh everything by monetary cost, and you believe in freebies without sacrifice. If monetary cost your motivates your every decision, maybe you should start monetising your relationships with people, and go for relationships that are as cost-free as possible. Then you might realise that relationships involve sacrifices too, same goes with whatever else you are doing.

  109. Scott Thong Says:

    You seem ot be suffering from what behavioral scientist would call ‘confirmation bias’. Seeking out evidence to confirm your bias. That however does not cause you to be objective, but then again I doubt objectivity is what you strive for.

    So you are free from such bias?

    ——————————–

    News site have to report what other researchers and experts find, and news site such as BBC and Reuters try to be as objective as possible so they have to report what other contemporary scientists have found.

    Your above betrays your ignorance and naivete. Do you really believe that only Fox is biased? Or that the rest of media or academia is spotlessly objective and neutral like it’s some sort of sacred religious oath?

    Here is your precious BBC:

    Internal memo reveals execs saying Bible tossed in trash OK, not Quran – What would you do, the executives were asked, if Cohen decided to throw kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible and the Quran in the trash.

    BBC’s Kirby admission to Phil Jones on “impartiality” – Climategate 2.0 email 4894.txt shows just what Alex Kirby of BBC thinks of climate skeptics

    Supposedly scientific and unbiased The Lancet:

    Yes, Lancet lied about Iraq war deaths – the new study found Lancet’s numbers to be SEVEN TIMES its own

    Widespread in medical science:

    Cancer industry total fraud exposed: Nearly all ‘scientific’ studies fail to be replicated – a new review published in the journal Nature. A shocking 88 percent of 53 “landmark” studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced

    US media in general:

    Name That Party! MSM Almost Always Omits Mention Democrat Party Affiliation of Convicted Politicians – a very, very partial list of examples of the MSM obscuring the Democrat affiliation of big sleazy crooks (while taking pains to make sure readers know when a Republican is caught)

    SARAH PALIN Caused the Zimmerman and Toulouse Shootings – The killing of Trayvon Martin was almost universally understood as racism. So, why is the Toulouse murderer just an “overgrown adolescent”?

    Presidential Double Standards: Bush and Obama Given Different Treatment on Same Issues – Compare joblessness headlines in the media for the two. Bush’s 5.7% unemployment: The President’s Jobless Recovery / Frustrated Job Seekers Cause Jobless Rate To Drop / Economy Adds Few New Jobs / Low Jobless Rate Reflects Lost Hope / US Jobless Rate Drops But For Wrong Reasons vs Obama’s much worse 8.6% unemployment: Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% Raising Hopes / Jobless Rate Drop Could Boost Obama / Obama Gets Economic Indicator He Can Crow About / Good News On Job Front For Obama / Jobless Rate Lowest In 2.5 Year

    Malaysiakini: Are US News Agencies Biased Against Palestine? – Tuvia Grossman. Red Cross Ambulance Incident. A Lebanese woman wailing in front of a demolished building (see next link).

    Flat Fatima will Make Your News Stories Become The Truth! – Her ‘house’ was destroyed several times on different occasions, magically rebuilding itself each time just in time for another Israeli air strike to flatten it.

    Mainstream Media Dishonesty – 101 Liberal Media Lies – Not just mistakes, un-confirmed rumours or biased reporting – but outright hoaxes, plagiarism, intentionally faked and acted-out scenes, doctored tests, and utter incompetence/laziness/low-intelligence/intentional malice in discerning fact from fantastic comic book fiction.

    THE WHOLE WORLD, and especially the liberal part of it, is indulging in confirmation bias or actively in the business of confirming the biases of their paymasters.

    Hey, some homework for you since you’re so hardworking and knowledgeable: What proportion of US journalists and media personalities self-affiliate as Democrat? And what is the donation proportion to Dems vs GOP?

    All reporters, scientists and so on are humans too. They are just as fallible as the rest of us.

    This is why climate change research is so rife with corruption and falsified data.

    This is why it’s taken 4 whole years for people to start vetting Obama – over stuff that was plainly written in his own memoirs – when the media could operate at lightspeed when it came to vetting Joe the Plumber, Sarah’s Palin’s book, and Rick Perry’s grades (Obama’s are still sealed!).

    ——————————–

    There is no such thing as freebies on the planet. A more sustainable lifestyle does not mean more freebies, it means people making the necessary lifestyle changes (making sacrifices where necessary), to prevent more damage be it global warming, habitat destruction (along with precious medicinal properties from destruction of complex ecosystem). If you want your kids to grow up in future where they do not know what the hell is a rainforest, manatees, dolphn, then by all means, continue your indulgence.

    You are plain disgusting now.

    You boast about how well you know me through my blog, how you do not merely assume (like I do about you). But then every few sentences, you throw another misguided, basless, wrongly assuming accusation at me.

    This is what I really believe:

    Global Warming Theory is to Environmentalism as Blood Letting is to Healthcare – I admit and accept that our [environment] is under jeapordy. Where do I ever deny it? I acknowledge the need to stop [deforestation, pollution and loss of biodiversity]. Just because I oppose [anthropogenic global warming] theory does not mean I reject all other [environmental] issues. I simply think that [combating climate change] will not accomplish anything for our [planet]. Don’t conflate [climate hysteria] with [environmentalism] in general.

    It’s an outright post stating my personal beliefs! It’s not even buried deep in the comments!

    Of course, unless you purposely scanned my blog for such postings, or have been following me for months or years, you could not be expected to know the above about me – especially through my snarking prose.

    But since you hubristically prided yourself on you all-encompassing knowledge about me and my blog, and used it as a brickbat to throw at me, I shall indulge myself in this particular harping.

    Honestly, raise the topic of climate change in specific! Let’s see how much drivel you have to match against my ‘confirmation bias’!

    ————————–

    I do not know what planet do you live in if you think that you are justified to weigh everything by monetary cost, and you believe in freebies without sacrifice. If monetary cost your motivates your every decision, maybe you should start monetising your relationships with people, and go for relationships that are as cost-free as possible. Then you might realise that relationships involve sacrifices too, same goes with whatever else you are doing.

    And after insinuating I am a Gaia-murdering panda-hater, now you presume to insult my personal relationships.

    What a classless troll.

  110. yeu sinh ly Says:

    yeu sinh ly…

    […]Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  111. search engine optimization guide Says:

    Hi! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would
    be ok. I’m undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers

%d bloggers like this: