Letters to the Editor
-
walter_map
I don't see what in her voting record makes her a closet republican. As I've said numerous times before, I have had serious problems with her since she's been a senator. But she's still better than McCain. Sorry. If you thought you could come here and pursuade people with insults and baiting, well, you're sadly mistaken.
But for the record, who would you have me vote for if hillary wins the nomination?
-
Hepstyle
The fact of the matter is, Iran would be idiots to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
And since Iran does not have any more nuclear weapons than Iraq did, you'd be an idiot to suppose they could. But then, perhaps you're an idiot.
Have you been listening to Bush's rhetoric on the subject, or Mrs. Clinton's? They seem to be having a contest to see who can be the more gratuitously genocidal.
-
Excellent.
Posters familiar with the old NYT forums, particularly the Krugman forum, will remember walter_map as a lightning rod for the neocons, assorted other right-wingers, and non-thinking people everywhere. All were laid low.
Scorpio69er remembers. And so does Dr. Krugman.
Nice to see we're continuing that tradition here.
Still haven't gotten any death threats from the wingnuts, though. Perhaps they're posing as Democrats here as well. Gosh, I miss the old NYT forums.
-
So what if it's pandering?
Clinton's take on waiving the Gas tax is a marvel of traditional politics. Thinking of this in terms of Clinton vs. Obama is shortsighted; he opposed the idea and hasn't been hurt by it, which is to be expected. Her real target is McCain. Because she proposes to pay for it with a tax on oil companies, it becomes a poison pill for republicans, who want, of course, to pay for it with nothing. McCain is already on the hook to support it. If he votes for it, he loses a lot of cred with the Republican party, who cannot accept a new tax. If he votes against it, he looks like an ass for putting big oil ahead of the small guy.
Krugman is right. This is small potatos economically. $9 billion dollars one way or the other is chump change compared to the tax rebate, not ot mention war costs.
-
walter_map
you're missing the point. Obviously the question was hypothetical. All the more reason why people shouldn't be getting their panties wadded up at the answer. Clinton and Bush are miles apart on the issue of Iran. Your claiming it's true does not make it so.
-
Solidarity?
> Where's the solidarity, Paul?
It is obvious to me that the Clinton's have strong support from the liberal Jewish community, especially among intellectuals, so it's no surprise where Mr Krugman's loyalties fall.
Consider the long list of Bill Clinton advisors: Robert Reich, Robert Rubin, Sandy Berger, Lawrence Summers, Madeline Albright, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, etc.
In contrast, both Obama's advisor Tony McPeak and the loathsome Rev Wright are viewed as at best skeptical-of, and at worst opposed-to, Jewish interests.
It's a no-brainer.
-
Theory Vs Practicality
Has anyone seen the analysis behind the economist claim. Yes, Krugman is correct, in the overall scheme of things it is miniscule and it goes both ways. Obambi harping on it as Washington politics is more wrong than the tax break proposal. Obambi's argument about gas repeal not working in Illinois is brain dead when you consider, states cannot regulate multinational corporation's tax structure but the Feds can, non argument shows inexperience on the part of Obambi.
Secondly, I live in a state where all of the state taxes were cancelled last summer and the prices did not go up at the pump immediately as a reaction, so that doesn't was from practical experience.
Thirdly, depending on what economist used, pay backs are going to be different. Am I an economist, no, but I do have Masters in Economics. I guess I will call my mentor at the econometric center and see what he thinks the impact would be in the local economy, just for grins.
This is insignificant issue and may help a few and some few that depend on tourism.
On the other hand we know about the blind support of Obambi from the so called intellegentiasi's. How many time have short term economic prediction and forecast have been accurate? They do not. Economic predictions and forecast converge over a longer period of time and summer months just ain't enough time!
-
Hepstyle
Clinton and Bush are miles apart on the issue of Iran.
Oh really? I suppose they're miles apart on the subject of Iraq as well.
Let's see:
Bush favored illegally conquering Iraq, and still does.
Clinton favored illegally conquering Iraq, and still does.Bush favors obliterating Iran.
Clinton favors obliterating Iran.Bush thinks Iran has nuclear weapons.
You think Iran has nuclear weapons. So does Hillary.Have I got it right so far?
If not, why not? Please, present evidence. Stop ranting for five minutes and show us something. So far you have nothing.
-
this is the part where walter_map
cites references for Clinton's apparent agreement with Bush on Iran policy.
And you're so far noticeably silent WRT the answer to my previous question. Should Hillary win the nomination, who do you think I should cast my vote for?
-
furthermore
where did I say I thought Iran had nuclear weapons?
-
Cerebral
Obambi's argument about gas repeal not working in Illinois is brain dead when you consider, states cannot regulate multinational corporation's tax structure but the Feds can, non argument shows inexperience on the part of Obambi.
First of all, your argument here was already refuted several pages ago, and you did not address the refutation.
Second, you're really into name-calling. You lose points for that.
Try again. This time stick to the issues and resort to facts, and not smears.
BTW, I find it extremely difficult to believe you have a master's degree in economics. "I guess I will call my mentor at the econometric center." Which "econometric center" would that be? And who do you think you're kidding?
-
Hepstyle
where did I say I thought Iran had nuclear weapons?
To quote:
The fact of the matter is, Iran would be idiots to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
You couldn't suppose they'd launch a nuclear attack unless you first supposed they had nuclear weapons.