Friday Night Open Thread: Already Gone

Boehner's bill is already dead in the Senate.

What else is going on in the world besides the economic picture? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Boehner Bill Passes House | Roger Clemens Asks Court to Dismiss Charges and Deny Retrial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    small-government hypocrites (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:17:35 PM EST
    Why, it's Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, closing a bunch of field offices that serve unemployed people while moaning that the U.S. Postal Service shouldn't be shutting down its offices in rural areas. What was all that about running government like a business?

    Stopping the blood bath in Libya. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    After elliptical accounts of the killing of the rebel's top military commander, General Younes, a member of the Rebel Governing Council, reported that a group of rebel soldiers sent to retrieve the general killed him along with two guards and dumped his body.  Shortly before the killing of the general, the rebel council issued a subpoena for his questioning about charges of treason.

    The killing of the general has shaken Western supporters by revealing divisions and intrigue within the rebel forces and have raised even more questions about the rebel's leaders credibility, according to a report in the NYT.   However, a member of the rebel council said "everything is under control." ..."this is just a rough stage we are going through."   Some of the general's tribe members expressed their concern by firing a grenade and engaging in a gun fight with rebel officers.  Tribal elders arrived to calm down the younger tribesman.

    If you want to see (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:36:09 PM EST
    some amazing architecture, google 'astana architecture'.   Just in the last ten years, several grand and amazing things have been built.

    I feel like a site (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:50:20 PM EST
    violator with the last comment. Did I mention the kazakh brides?

    You forgot the required link (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:03:46 PM EST
    to be a bona fide site violator :)

    Yeah, where's the link to the knockoff (none / 0) (#6)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    designer duds? :)

    Jajaja/ (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:17:45 PM EST
    don't worry about it!

    Too funny.


    i like that (none / 0) (#20)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 02:04:17 AM EST

    i've heard that e-mail laughter in Korean is ke-ke-ke

    i like that too


    Love that song, Jeralyn. Thanks! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:26:10 PM EST

    Why it is important to have a Dem Pres (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:30:26 PM EST
    Reason 1 and Reason 2.
    Fuel efficiency standards and stem cell research funding.

    fuel efficiency standards (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    better than nothing, but could have been much more ambitious. Obama campaigned on doing something about climate change, has really chickened out on that front.

    Still better than any Republican would have done (none / 0) (#10)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    we'll get slightly better mileage... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:58:33 PM EST
    ...on the way to have our lab-grown artery installed.

    if we survive the coming economic crash, that is.

    i get your point, it's one that i am not at all unfamiliar with.

    with both parties equally corrupt on the economy, and protecting their even more corrupt patrons/masters, and with the hope of any recovery sans revolt diminishing by the minute, everything else really pales right now.  


    Forget "Hope", "Change" ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:24:38 AM EST
    ... and campaign promises.

    Now it's just - "He's Not As Bad As Bachman!"



    Blaming is easy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:57:29 PM EST
    The President gets blamed here for pursuing health care reform during bad economic times. The President gets blamed again for not pursuing more ambitious environmental goals during bad economic times.

    all parts of the same whole (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:06:29 AM EST
    What Truman said about the heat and the kitchen.  It was Truman, right?  Either way, it's another drawback of this post-partisan horsesh*t, because it keeps you from truly staking out your beliefs, the places you draw lines in the sand...because you think lines in the sand, by nature, are always bad.

    In athletics, they call it "playing not to lose" rather than "playing to win."  Obama is all about playing not to lose.  Playing to win would force him to drop his entire rap.


    I see Obama as (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:17:49 AM EST
    playing to be above the fray,  so that he can pick and choose what parts of bills he can own.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 02:00:52 AM EST
    I find it very frustrating that there is no line in the sand with him. Lack of passion for any position kinda sucks at his level. "Playing not to lose" is a very good description. Maybe we can send him out to the just started up training camps (are you ready for some football?!)

    I hope his feelings weren't hurt with his drop in twitter fans today :P

    Hey! my TeeVee just told me Apple has more cash on hand the the US Gov!


    maybe (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 01:25:15 AM EST
    The President gets blamed here for pursuing health care reform during bad economic times.

    some people at TL may blame him for that

    for the most part, though, the president gets blamed here for following in the footsteps of Bob Dole & the Heritage Foundation & producing, not health care reform, but a cr@ppy piece of health insurance legislation, so cr@ppy in fact that he made sure it won't begin to go into effect until after he is re-elected (if he is)

    regarding what you said earlier about the environment & stem cell research, i have no great faith that Obama & the other corporatist Dems will be a whole lot better than the GOP on the environment - really, it all comes down for both parties to what Wall Street wants

    but i do think Obama & the other corporatist Dems won't be as bad on stem cell research as the crazy GOP has proved to be

    the day the Dems suit up & join the battle against evolution & stem cell research is the day i'm done with them once & for all

    but what a pathetically low bar that is


    Focusing on Obama's stemcell support (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 09:07:58 AM EST
    is almost irrelevant.  The Chinese have shown no phony ethical qualms about taking that horse and running with it.  Not Invented Here is the wave of the future.

    Meanwhile, our politicians will continue to compete for suckers drawn to irrational belief systems.


    What I blame him for is (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    not producing a single payer health care system based on the Medicare Model.

    The buck (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 05:58:57 AM EST
    stops with the President. If you're not going to have him take the heat from his bad economic decisions then you need to not credit him with getting OBL either.

    No. The President gets blamed ... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:36:33 AM EST
    ... here for focusing on health "care" reform to the exclusion of virtually everything else in order to produce a cr@ppy HCR bill.  He "gets blamed" for using backroom deals with PHRMA and the insurance companies to get it passed, despite his promises of an open process.  He gets blamed for not even trying to get a public option passed, despite his promises to the contrary.  He also gets blamed for wasting his Congressional majorities and political capital his first two years and failing to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs.

    I take it you hold (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:04:59 AM EST
    that environmental policy must be bad for the economy?

    Would you want environmental cost-benefit (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    analysis--with extra stress on the costs--prior to any federal environmental action, whether in the promulation or enforcement phase? If yes, then the Repubs clearly fit the mold...from the Reagan-Gorsuch years on. As many EPA enforcement personnel who experienced the difference will tell you: The emphasis on cost by the Repubs (even in those statutory areas where toxicity determinations outweigh costs in the statutory language.) To look at the differences that the two political philosophies bring--NB, from Reagan on--look at George W's approach in Texas & later...for W the answer lay in "voluntary compliance" by industry, etc. Shorthand in the distinction dept for environmental implementation: Compliance (Repub) or Enforcement (Dem)...a real distinction expressed in program emphasis on a voluntary, cajoling compliance & rehabilitative plans or regulatory, with a focus on timetables & deterrence, enforcement mechanisms.  

    There is a difference in planning, targetting, expectations...and, that adds up (or when it is more lackadaisical, the cumulative effect in the numbers/degree of direct environmental actions & the ambient effects is seen quite clearly in category by category comparison.)

    Yet...the economy & the environment are inextricably linked, when you look closely. Former President Clinton & his EPA Administrator Carol Browning demonstrated that and furthered that understanding from the beginning of their tenures. BTW, until that time, it was common to believe that you had to have one or the other and that (as an old economics professor friend tried to convince me) when the economy was in trouble, the environment will go to the sidelines. What President Obama has done--whether in something as simple as solar panel demonstrations & promoting for national leaders energy savings mechanisms at the Denver History & Science musem 8n 2009 or engaging openly on the longtime contentious climate change path via new regulatory proposals from EPA & beginning a legislative response (that anyone living the area knew would be akin to facing onslaught from the Repub Crazies)--is continue that educational & encouragement push for green industry & green jobs...so that it would really become more than pie-in-the-sky.

    The economy & the environment...can & should be a model of interdependence. Both Clinton & Obama understood that; both have attempted to further that. Compare the syndrome of "you can only afford one" that modern day Repubs cry about...and, even there, the difference is obvious.


    No (none / 0) (#16)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:42:58 AM EST
    The effect will be mixed in the short term. Some jobs will be created, some will be lost. It will take a number of years and continuous investment to reap benefits. Unfortunately, people in our country do not seem to have the patience for long term projects.

    There you go again (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 04:13:10 AM EST
    Blaming the people of the country

    In a democracy (none / 0) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    people are also responsible for the choices they make.
    Thinking assignment for NYShooter: When kids (say teenagers) get bad grades, who is responsible? Does the fault entirely lie with teachers, parents or teenagers? Or are each of them partly to blame?

    As the (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    mother of a teenager, I can tell you that about 90% of the blame AT LEAST is the fault of the teenager because teenagers are old enough to know to do their homework. Once in a blue moon you could fault the teacher or the parents.

    Analogies are never perfect (none / 0) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    but in your mind if the buck should stop with the teenager and not go up to the parent or teacher, why should not the buck stop with the people instead of Congresspeople and the President. People have more say in electing a Congressperson and President than a teenager in choosing a parent/teacher.

    Okay (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    So everyone who voted for Obama in '08 is a bozo yourself included then?

    I don't think the voters are stupid when they don't vote the way I might want them to and they're not geniuses when they vote the way I might want them to. There's also an emotional basis for voting for some people and you're ignoring that.


    Everyone has the right to vote for anyone (none / 0) (#44)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    of their choosing or not vote at all in a democracy but like everything else in life, people will have to live with the consequences of their actions.
    Results of the 2010 elections will have its consequences.

    What a wonderful idea (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 10:12:51 AM EST
    Why I am sure everyone has around $45,000 for a new car, the Chevy Volt, so they can save:

    For American families, the president said the agreement - which will be subject to a mid-course review - means filling up the car every two weeks, instead of every week. That would save $8,000 in fuel costs over the life of a vehicle, he said


    Of course there is a $7500 tax credit involved. That way everyone can pay for the new car. Oh, wait.. Isn't everyone paying for the desires of a few being fought over this very moment? Can we all say, "default?" "No social security checks?"

    And that $8000 savings? Let me see... Let's play like I run an oil company and I see my revenues going down because consumption is going down. What will I do? What will I do?

    I'm gonna raise my price.

    Say goodbye to those savings, eh?

    Yes, its great to have a Democratic President.


    Silly (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    Let's play like I run an oil company and I see my revenues going down because consumption is going down. What will I do? What will I do?

    I'm gonna raise my price.

    Say goodbye to those savings, eh?

    As an oil company, you can't raise prices simply because of a reduction in revenue.  Oil is a worldwide commodity whose price is determined by the market.  If worldwide demand for a commodity decreases significantly, the price also decreases.


    I take it you have (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    never heard of OPEC???? Just cut the production to the same level we have now and the price will increase.

    I mean, do you actually believe that oil is a free market?

    Now that is silly.


    Opec doesn't change the fact that ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    ... Jim's oil can't decide to charge $120/barrel for its oil when he loses revenue, when the other oil producers are charging $100/barrel.

    Only in Jimworld does reduced demand = higher prices.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    quit playing Jim's Shadow and just admit that as volume drops oil producers will increase prices to maintain the same profit level.

    Only when there is an increase in supply will prices drop... Wait! Obama fixed it so that can't happen!


    Why would I "admit" ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    ... a winger fairytale?  Sure, if demand decreased substantially OPEC could try to reign in output to lower supply and keep the price from falling, but even OPEC can't change basic laws of economics - certainly a single oil company couldn't do it.

    heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    So a doubling of the fleet MPG average wouldn't be a significant drop in demand?

    Oh... really???

    Then why are we bothering.




    Why are you laughing ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    So a doubling of the fleet MPG average wouldn't be a significant drop in demand?

    ... at your own arguments?

    Of course a doubling in US CAFE standards will result in a significant drop in demand.  The fairytale kicks in when you claim that this substantial drop in demand will mean an oil company will just increase their price to make up for a drop in revenue.  An oil company can't do that.  OPEC might be able to counteract a large drop in demand to some degree by reducing supply, but only to the extent that it members are willing to agree to reduced production.

    It's basic economics.  Drop in demand for a commodity = lower price, unless the supply also drops sharply or demand increases somewhere else (i.e. China, India).


    Of course (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 05:48:09 PM EST
    an OIL company can't do that.

    BUT when THEY all act together they absolutely positively can do exactly that.

    Quit trying to act like a free market guy. You aren't.

    And I'm back ROL.


    Ohhhhhh ... so NOW you're ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    ... saying what you would do if you were alll the oil companies.


    So easy to do, yet they didn't think of that during most of the 80s and 90s, when a glut of supply caused low prices for a looooooooong time.  Of course, when booming economies in China, India, etc., caused a large increase in demand, prices went up.

    Go figure.

    BTW - I'm not a "free market guy" in the winger/Ayn Rand sense of the phrase, but I do believe in well-regulated capitalism.  Have been all my life (run a business, have employees, payroll, taxes, etc.).  


    So all the gasoline prices (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    wind up within a few cents of each other by accident.

    Now I'm really ROF LOL.


    The price of many fungible ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 09:36:54 PM EST
    ... commodities are very close in price, regardless of the fact that their supplied by different companies.

    It's almost like you're trying to suggest the oil companies can set the price of oil arbitrarily at the level they choose, irrespective of demand.

    You should be laughing on the floor.


    And the oil companies will (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:19:18 AM EST
    reduce profits by holding price the same as they see volume fall because fleet MPG is increasing.

    Sure they will.

    No doubt.


    You betch'um Red Rider!

    (Be careful and don't slip on all that sarcasm on the floor.)


    That's not sarcasm (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:32:15 AM EST
    It's whatever's left after someone tries to make illogical arguments ignoring basic principles of economics and logic with absolutely zero evidence.

    Your place must be full of it.


    Your claim that because (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    commodity prices fall and rise together merely reflects the fact that all producers serve the same markets. And when volume rises and demand doesn't meet that volume prices fall.

    See tomatoes for a perfect example.

    Oil is not tomatoes in that oil must be refined to be useful. The OPEC members control volume. The oil companies control refining, distribution and sales.

    When OPEC sees demand falling due to better mileage cars they will reduce production. The oil companies will follow their lead. No one will reduce their price. Instead they will increase it to keep the same profit margins.

    Now, we both know that I am correct in this. If you want to argue that improved fleet MPG is good for the environment, go for it. But the consumer won't save a dime. Indeed, based on the increased cost of the vehicles and gasoline price increase he will be lucky to break even. No way he will save $8000 over the life of the vehicle.


    Maybe you should speak for ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    Now, we both know that I am correct in this.

    ... yourself, for a change.  No, "we" don't.  OPEC has some control over the amount of oil getting to the market, but they can't automatically cut supply whenever they choose - at least not enough to keep prices high.  It's precisely why they were unable to drive prices higher for most of the 80s and 90s, despite calls from many of their members to cut production to raise prices.

    BTW - People won't need to recover $8,000 to break even - that's the conclusion of the Center for Automotive Research, a group with close ties to the auto industry.  Their study is flawed, in that it overestimates the cost of increasing fuel economy standards" and "vastly underestimates the value of fuel savings" by, among other flaws, using a discount rate "rejected by the courts and all regulatory agencies."  The CFA, EPA and NHTSA studies all conclude that the fuel cost savings realized by the new CAFE standards will be between $5,300-$7,000, or in excess of $6,000.  Average cost per vehicle will be between $2,100 and $2,600, for a net savings of $4,000-$5,000+.  Of course, no one is even suggesting that reduced demand for gas will cause an increase in the price of gas.  Probably because there isn't a single bit of evidence to support such a silly claim, ...

    ... and they don't like being laughed at.


    If they don't like to be (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    laughed at they shouldn't issue studies that are risible.

    Risible - new favorite word? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:54:42 PM EST
    Come to think of it ... another way in which you remind me of Vizzini.

    BTW - They're taken quite seriously, being professionals with a great deal of expertise in the area.  Care to point to a single professional or economist (or anyone) who supports your claim?

    Be happy to wait ... (cue Jeopardy music)


    My claim that (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    the oil companies will increase prices as volume decreases due to increases in fleet MPG?

    Oh, anyone with a high school education and a dollop of common sense.

    Face it, you jumped in to disagree and be my shadow and have trapped yourself into trying to defend a nonsensical position.

    What a great Monday morning and thanks for the chuckles!


    IOW - You got nuthin' (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    The authors of the studies I cited have waaaaaaaayyyy more than a high school education and a "dollop" of common sense, and you haven't cited a single person to support your higher CAFE standards > lower demand > higher prices theory.

    Did you ever notice that, when a winger boxes themselves into a corner trying to defend a fairy tale (especially one that not even other wingers are pushing), they always fall back on the "It's just common sense!" - defense?

    It's not just transparent, it's ...

    ... risible.


    And let's say you're an oil company and (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:35:22 AM EST
    you see revenues going up when consumption is going up. I bet you will raise your prices.

    Such a reliable gauge of what is good for the country.


    No one ever said (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    that oil companies do what is good for the country.

    That's what (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    happened with those big screen TVs isn't it? Once the demand went down the prices just skyrocketed didn't they?

    But of course, you're pretty much agreeing with everybody here when you're saying oil companies are parasites who will suck every cent out of the population that they can.


    Comparing consumer electronic (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    pricing to oil pricing is apples to oranges.

    And thinking that those on the oil food change will not raise prices to compensate for reduced demand is wrong.


    Thousands of Islamists took to the (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 01:13:12 AM EST
    streets in Egypt yesterday, protesting efforts by liberal groups to acheive some small measure of secularism in the government. Still not looking too good over there.

    I am sure that when (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:51:22 AM EST
    such people emigrate to the West, they shed their political atavism. I read that a recent survey asked 500 British Muslims if homosexuality is acceptable, and ZERO said yes.  

    did i miss the thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 04:30:48 AM EST
    about rachel maddow being sued for defamation, by bradlee reed, for $50,000,000? larry klayman is his attorney. the basis of the suit is that ms. maddow had the temerity to publicly quote mr. reed, resulting in accuracy-based destruction of his reputation, such as it is.

    the suit obviously will survive only for the 30 seconds or so it takes a judge to dismiss it. but the fund raising possibilities are endless.

    thanks, interesting. (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:33:02 AM EST
    On a  related note, I read that Marcus Bachmann is on Michele's  staff. This makes  his gay cure ministry completely fair game.

    Euphemism (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:44:45 AM EST
    What do you call it when the markets tumble, as they are poised to do, bringing with it financial disaster to small investors?

    A "correction".

    Well, you could call it (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    "the death of about the only thing Obama was clinging to as 'proof' his policies were working and the economy wasn't 'really' as bad as people thought."

    Didn't catch Maher's show (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    last night but apparently one of his panelists was the great-grand daughter of Herbert Hoover who is, sadly, shilling for the GOP and their economic nonsense as a party "strategist".  One would have thought there would be some political evolution in that family, over the generations, as a result of the unfortunate Great Depression president acting as a motivator to evolve away from failed laissez-faire policies.  Apparently not with the Hoovers though.

    My preference in the GOP president-new generation field, as I've posted before, is one Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, partly for her evolved politics (either a lib Dem or Dem-leaning liberal indie) partly for her very interesting off-planet mindset.  Not for everyone of course, especially on this board, and I find myself rolling my eyes at some of the Mars stuff.  Still, she's gorgeous to look at with those big eyes and the beautiful skin, and it's very refreshing, not to mention jarring, to see a direct descendant of such a famous president delving so deeply and publicly into x-files territory.

    she was a perfect GOP talking point machine (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:49:52 AM EST
    Nothing you have not heard 100 times. Personable, pretty blonde, i'm sure she will have a gig on Fox, if she does not already. A perfect usher into the second Great Depresion.

    who was that caricature (none / 0) (#45)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    from Freedomworks on maher's show? the 1970's called, and demanded he send their sideburns back.

    both conservatrolls made the "but both sides do it" argument, vis a vis the wasserman-shultz/west kerfuffle, with the standard total lack of confirmable evidence to support their claims. unfortunately, mr. maher failed to demand they actually provide some proof.


    The man with the sideburns (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    was Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of Freedom Works (Dick Armey, is Chair). Kibbe is one of the masterminds of the Tea Party; Freedom Works' house organ states that he is an economist by training and a "well respected national policy expert" (BA Economics Grove City College, a Christian liberal arts college in Penn and noted for not permitting any federal aid for students--loans, grants or scholarships; Kibbe also did graduate work at George Mason University).

    Kibbe is also a Distinguished Sr. Fellow at the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna--a center ( with a relationship to George Mason U) that follows the Austrian School of Economics--study that does not look to empirical or statistical evidence.   Kibbe's less than mainstream economics may tell something about Republican Tea Parry notions of budgets and, perhaps, the futility of trying to "compromise" and "negotiate".   As for Maher's other guest, Margaret Hoover,  I sure hope that Calvin Coolidge does not have a granddaughter out there somewhere.