Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Error in Supreme Court graph?Glenn: In your Supreme Court graph there appears to be an error. As you know, during the entire eight years of the Bush administration the Court has been controlled by Republican appointees. At present, the graph makes it appear as though at some points during the last eight years there was a Democratic majority on the Court. This is not the case.
From the post: "In comments, Harksaw suggests adding the Supreme Court to the graph, based on which party appointed the justices." As the linked comment points out, there are 7 GOP-appointed justice and 2 Democratic-appointed justices -- and that's been the case since 2000 -- and that's what the chart reflects.
If your entire defense is "I am not a liar, so how DARE you call me one, ah do declare you meanie!", even though you clearly are one, then there's really no point in trying to engage you in further discourse, now is there? You lied, I refuted you in some detail, and your response was to ignore my response and simply repeat your original lie. A totally non-responsive response.
You don't work for Sarah Palin, by any chance? Ya betcha!
Greenwald Corrects Diagram on My Suggestion, Doesn't Note Correction
Actually, this wasn't "your" correction -- another commenter (Vadranor) pointed out this error before you did:
http://tinyurl.com/3z9c2d
And I didn't correct it this morning -- I corrected it last night, as soon as I saw the comments (including yours - just not first) pointing out the error.
The reason I didn't add an update noting the correction is because the corrected graph actually bolsters, not undermines, my point -- that is, the accurate graph reflects even greater GOP control than I originally indicated, since I had forgotten about that 6 months in 2001 when the GOP, under Trent Lott, controlled the Senate.
Free market capitalism didn't fail because it was hijacked by corrupt people. It failed because it's an idiotic and simple-minded faith and greed-based economic ideology that you really have to be an idiot or a nutcase to believe in (or a sociopath to not care so long as you're raking in the big bucks). It has NEVER succeeded, unless your definition of success is massive short-term gains by corrupt assholes who rob everybody else blind. -- kovie
This just goes to show that the left wingnuts never really go away, they just fester and re-emerge.
heru-ur
So please illuminate my unschooled mind as to the wondrous success stories of free market economics. I'm a patient person, I assure you. -- kovie
No, you do not seem to be. I gave a link to what banking is that would show you that your little insinuations that I support the odious Republicans are bullshit.
Your first act will have to be to empty your mind of all the fantasies you learned in the government run schools that you attended. (even the private schools follow the public ones these days)
Then start with something real easy and down to earth. Try "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?" and then tell me what part you can not agree with. (they say it is suitable for as low as grade 8, but many professional read it as well)
http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-
Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617525
or click sig
Review: "Maybury's forte is explaining economics in an interesting, logical, and easy-to-understand manner no small achievement in economics pedagogy. Equally important, the economics in 'Whatever Happened to Penny Candy' makes such good sense. When government's economic policies make us say 'uncle,' let's hope it's 'Uncle Eric,' Maybury's letterwriter and alter ego." --John G. Murphy, Ph.D., President, National Schools Committee for Economic Education (commenting about the previous edition)
That the Right believes in the fundamental stupidity of the American voter while simultaneously pretending to revere and speak for them...
is based on the spectacular success of that assumption in the past. This is a public that **re-elected** Dubya, after all.
Some Americans believe Biden "won" the debate because they are as uninformed as he. As a senator for 30-plus years, Biden should know the Constitution and the role of the vice president. Biden stated that Cheney "doesn't realize that Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch." Actually, Article 1 defines the Legislative Branch, and contrary to what Biden goes on to state (that the vice president presides over the Senate only in a time when there's a tie vote), the vice president is ALWAYS the President of the Senate, but he/she "shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." A few more of Biden's debate gaffes: (1) Claimed that McCain voted "the exact same way" as Obama to increase taxes on those making $42,000 but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY; (2) claimed Obama never said he would meet unconditionally with Ahmedinijad but Obama did say that and Biden attacked him for it; (3) claimed that McCain and Obama voted the same way against funding troops, but McCain opposed a bill because it included a timeline; (4) claimed that McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage when, in fact, McCain is proposing a tax credit to offset any tax hike; (5) claimed that Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska, which she didn't. The list goes on. . .
The Democrats are complicit in driving this country's economy into the tank, beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, the retooling of that act under Clinton, and their refusal to bring to a vote in 2005 and 2007 a bill that would have clamped down on Fannie's and Freddie's subprime mortgage excesses. And all should be aware that Obama currently is sponsoring two big giveaway bills--the Jubilee Act, which would cancel as much as $75 billion of Third World debt, and the Global Poverty Act, which would have the U.S. doling out an estimated $845 billion.
heru-ur
If your entire defense is "I am not a liar, so how DARE you call me one, ah do declare you meanie!", even though you clearly are one, then there's really no point in trying to engage you in further discourse, now is there? You lied, I refuted you in some detail, and your response was to ignore my response and simply repeat your olie. A totally non-responsive response.
You don't work for Sarah Palin, by any chance? Ya betcha!
-- kovie
You "refuted" not one damn thing other than in your fevered little mind. You have offered nothing other than your assertions and name-calling.
Your little "ponies" and "waaaa -- you lie" tricks are not really enough to overturn the Austrian School of Economics --- especially when newspapers in London start to quote them as being the ones to call this economic mess early on.
Don't like Ron Paul's economics? Fine. Just try not to look like a fool by claiming we are all "liars".
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
